# Should newspapers ban climate deniers like Reddit's science forum?



## ugh1979

> *Should newspapers ban climate deniers like Reddit's science forum?*
> Moderators on one of the sections of Reddit have banned people denying manmade climate change. Newspapers should follow, argues Nathan Allen for Grist
> 
> Full article


This is great news considering how many people read Reddit's science forum. I agree the conspiracy theorists should be banned unless they have valid evidence to back up their claims they as they are a danger to society.


----------



## LeeMann

:no

Even lies have a time to reign and rule over the truth.


----------



## ugh1979

LeeMann said:


> :no
> 
> Even lies have a time to reign and rule over the truth.


Conspiracy theories like yours are a danger to society.


----------



## BadGirl

www.pacja.org


----------



## LeeMann

ugh1979 said:


> Conspiracy theories like yours are a danger to society.


Well ... danger ... I don't know what to say. But unlike you, I don't think there is anything that is ultimately dangerous. Everything is good including the man-made global warming club of thought.

Anyways, if I am not welcome here, as you clearly stated in the other thread, *farewell*. I am sure it is good to have discussion with individuals that doesn't have contradictory opinions. :tiptoe


----------



## Crimson Lotus

Sadly, it's impossible to ban stupidity; these people will believe anything their corporate masters will tell them, for them science is a meaningless word.


----------



## Sacrieur

I do not support censorship.


----------



## ugh1979

LeeMann said:


> Well ... danger ... I don't know what to say. But unlike you, I don't think there is anything that is ultimately dangerous. Everything is good including the man-made global warming club of thought.
> 
> Anyways, if I am not welcome here, as you clearly stated in the other thread, *farewell*. I am sure it is good to have discussion with individuals that doesn't have contradictory opinions. :tiptoe


As I said, I welcome different opinions if you can provide evidence to back them up, but you just keep repeating the same conspiracy theories with nothing to back them up.

I think it's dangerous to promote ideas which have no evidence for their truth. (i.e. lies)


----------



## ugh1979

Sacrieur said:


> I do not support censorship.


Even if it's essentially trolling?


----------



## Ignopius

I think papers should censor it out. There's a bunch of misinformation out there on climate change to raise doubt in people's minds.


----------



## tennislover84

It depends what you mean by "banned". Newspapers are free to set their own editorial guidelines, and in an ideal world, they'd be "fair and balanced", although not in the way Fox News interprets that phrase. So if there's not any evidence to support a particular idea, or if there's a wealth of evidence that disproves it, then I'd hope that the media wouldn't promote it as being true.

The article also seems to be suggesting that discussion of climate change not being man-made should be censored out of the reader comments. I think it would be dreadful if that happened. I'm quite shocked that you seem to think it's a good idea. The online newspapers are quite within their rights to moderate their comments however they want, but a tone of selective censorship would be set for the internet in general. Why even have comments if you don't allow people to have their say, unless they agree with the article in question? Of course, some sites have come to that conclusion and decided to just remove the comments section completely, which is even worse.

If there are lots of people pushing theories that aren't backed up by evidence, shouldn't we be addressing the reason why, rather than just hiding it? There could be bigger problems that will go unnoticed, and you're just handing over the current consensus among the internet press, which is that dissent is still tolerated and discussion is encouraged.

The press, internet or not, is censored enough as it is. Here's an example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3616930.html
http://rt.com/usa/carter-comment-nsa-snowden-261/
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...-a-911589.html

Try to find this story in the mainstream, English-speaking press. I would have thought that it's quite noteworthy, for a former US President to suggest that his country doesn't have a real democracy. We already have a shocking amount of willful omission in the mainstream press. How many people here know about Seymour Hersh's piece on Syria, for instance?

I understand that this stuff about trying to stop people shouting down what seems to be a fairly obvious human contribution to climate change is a noble cause, but there's far more at stake when you don't protest against the censorship of the internet. I know it's a cliche, but that quote about defending to the death the right of another to say things that we don't agree with... it's still as valid as ever.


----------



## Sacrieur

ugh1979 said:


> Even if it's essentially trolling?


Yes, there is no right to not be offended. No speech should be censored.

Although there is room for a harassment charge.


----------



## ugh1979

Sacrieur said:


> Yes, there is no right to not be offended. No speech should be censored.
> 
> Although there is room for a harassment charge.


So, Holocaust deniers for example should get given free run of the press as well?

I'm all for free speech, as long as it's not the widespread promotion of something which has been so thoroughly shown to be wrong.

While i'd never say an absolute blanket ban on any claim should be enforced, giving as loud a voice to conspiracy theories as scientific theories has the potential to be harmful.

It's for the same reason evolution is taught in the vast majority of schools rather than creationism. The latter should rightly not be taught as a valid option.


----------



## BadGirl

Slightly off-topic, but...interesting discussions (uncensored, I think, although posts can be reported) at www.debate.org


----------



## Sacrieur

ugh1979 said:


> So, Holocaust deniers for example should get given free run of the press as well?


Yes.



> I'm all for free speech, as long as it's not the widespread promotion of something which has been so thoroughly shown to be wrong.


And who is the one that gets to decide what's thoroughly been shown to be wrong?



> It's for the same reason evolution is taught in the vast majority of schools rather than creationism. The latter should rightly not be taught as a valid option.


Imagine if a religious group like the tea party got a strong hold on the government. They deem that evolution is harmful to children and mandate intelligent design instead because evolution has been thoroughly been shown to be wrong.

No one should have the power to censor speech. If you disagree with what someone has to say, then use your own voice to demonstrate discontent. It is up to us as a society to educate people so that they have skills to determine what is demonstratively false from what isn't. Giving that power to someone else is just begging for it to be corrupted.

Maybe I am far too cynical, but give someone an inch, and they'll take it a mile.


----------



## Zeeshan

I dont know about you guys

Ive been in toronto for 20 years and the weather relative to the month has been the same

Based on that I must conclude that climate change does not exist


----------



## BadGirl

Zeeshan said:


> I dont know about you guys
> 
> Ive been in toronto for 20 years and the weather relative to the month has been the same
> 
> Based on that I must conclude that climate change does not exist


Between 1948 & 2010, the average annual temperature in Canada has warmed by 1.6 Centigrade - a higher rate of warming than in most other regions of the world.


----------



## Zeeshan

BadGirl said:


> Between 1948 & 2010, the average annual temperature in Canada has warmed by 1.6 Centigrade - a higher rate of warming than in most other regions of the world.


Emma you gotta be putting me on. Your talking about warming come here for a bit. Its freezing outside and it has been freezing for a good month !!

And its not even that much. Have you thought that maybe the planet doesn't want its hebitants freezing and is adjusting to create warm conditions for us

The planet is dedinately alive and conscious


----------



## BadGirl

Zeeshan said:


> Emma you gotta be putting me on. Your talking about warming come here for a bit. Its freezing outside and it has been freezing for a good month !!
> 
> And its not even that much. Have you thought that maybe the planet doesn't want its hebitants freezing and is adjusting to create warm conditions for us
> 
> The planet is dedinately alive and conscious


It would be foolish to form those sorts of opinions based only on your personal experience. Have a look at some of the evidence - please don't ignore what 99.9% of scientists are telling us. 
It isn't about feeling warm or cold, it's about the effects on our planet - and this is well-documented.


----------



## Zeeshan

BadGirl said:


> It would be foolish to form those sorts of opinions based only on your personal experience. Have a look at some of the evidence - please don't ignore what 99.9% of scientists are telling us.
> It isn't about feeling warm or cold, it's about the effects on our planet - and this is well-documented.


Science is faulty by nature. It attempts to take an objective perspective and ignores that the earth itself is alive. We call it mother earth for a reason.

I assure you not only is it alive but conscious about the situation. It will take care of us. Our life is its life. No different then the cells if our body are alive and though some die we replenish them

We are all made up of the same elements. The nature of the universe its such that it thrives on life. It has gone to great lengths to turn you into an independant conscious being.

Have you noticed that the internal tempreture of our body changes based on its function. We get a fever when infections have to be killed. This is no different


----------



## BadGirl

Zeeshan said:


> Science is faulty by nature. It attempts to take an objective perspective and ignores that the earth itself is alive. We call it mother earth for a reason.
> 
> I assure you not only is it alive but conscious about the situation. It will take care of us. Our life is its life. No different then the cells if our body are alive and though some die we replenish them
> 
> We are all made up of the same elements. The nature of the universe its such that it thrives on life. It has gone to great lengths to turn you into an independant conscious being.
> 
> Have you noticed that the internal tempreture of our body changes based on its function. We get a fever when infections have to be killed. This is no different


In other words, you have no evidence to refute what 99.9% of scientists have found?


----------



## NeuromorPhish

Well, newspapers don't have a down-vote features. So if anything, they'd need a ban more than reddit does. But then again, censorship seems like a dubious solution to the problem of spreading factual inaccuracies. First of all, it's a very limited measure, and people with strongly held opinions will find alternative sources. Secondly, one might argue - as people ITT pointed out- that freedom of speech is more important than the elimination of falsehoods.


----------



## Zeeshan

BadGirl said:


> In other words, you have no evidence to refute what 99.9% of scientists have found?


I ignore evidence outside of me

But you ignore evidence inside of you


----------



## BadGirl

Zeeshan said:


> I ignore evidence outside of me
> 
> Why?
> 
> But you ignore evidence inside of you


What?


----------



## Rich19

You guys are nuts a huge proportion of ppl think that man made climate change does not exist. I don't outright deny it but there is by no means enogth evedince to confirm man made climate change


----------



## BadGirl

Now I'm starting to think that the OP has the right idea.


----------



## scarpia

Zeeshan said:


> I ignore evidence outside of me


So do you think the Earth is flat? It sure looks flat to me. It's subtle but the curve does exist. As does global warming.









But to answer the OP question - no we should not ban stoopid speach. They'd shut down this site!


----------



## inerameia

I don't believe censorship will help. Education is what helps. However there will be some people who will disbelieve science. And you can't make them think a certain way.


----------



## tennislover84

NeuromorPhish said:


> Well, newspapers don't have a down-vote features. So if anything, they'd need a ban more than reddit does. But then again, censorship seems like a dubious solution to the problem of spreading factual inaccuracies. First of all, it's a very limited measure, and people with strongly held opinions will find alternative sources. Secondly, one might argue - as people ITT pointed out- that freedom of speech is more important than the elimination of falsehoods.


In my opinion, down-vote features are awful too. If more people were prepared to engage themselves in civil discourse, whether it's about the environment, politics, or anything else... it wouldn't be possible for a minority to shout the loudest. I dislike the idea of most people just sitting there, too lazy to contribute to a discussion, but with the expectation of removing dissent from view, via a simple click of the mouse button.

Earlier in the thread, when I said that censorship can hide other, bigger problems, one of the bigger problems could be a population of apathetic, information receivers (who contribute nothing of their own to the debate.) At least people who deny climate change are taking part.

Another potential issue that would be covered up by just censoring climate change stuff, is the very real possibility of people who are paid to voice certain opinions online. For example: one person controlling 100 fake internet personas, or even something completely automated. I'm almost certain that this kind of thing happens already, although I admit that I can't provide any proof right now. This kind of thing would be a symptom of a much bigger problem, which would be an attempt being made by semi-sovereign, multi-national companies, to have total control over the flow of information.


----------



## BadGirl

Sacrieur said:


> Staff Edit


Nothing has been proven, lol.


----------



## Zeeshan

We live in an age where humans have become so arrogant and see themselves above nature

They forget that they too are nature

Science promotes this arrogance And is the primary reason for the downgrades we have seen in life overall. The sad thing is that social anxiety is primaraly a result of scientific development. It was non existent in humans in the pastl

The more we move away from our bond to the universe and see ourselves as seperate entities from nature the faster humanity will cease to be. 

Our only hope is for us to realize that we are adaptive as is the universe. Our consciousness is a gift from the universe. Yet we now think that somehow we are able to change its nature.


----------



## Sacrieur

BadGirl said:


> Nothing has been proven, lol.


Both people want to censor each other. Censorship quickly turns from protection to a personal service used to squelch dissident opinion.


----------



## Classified

Sacrieur said:


> And who is the one that gets to decide what's thoroughly been shown to be wrong?


Research and facts. And then if that research can be replicated, even by the critics, it can be announced to the public. There is the scientific method which is supposed to be followed (even if it has a few problems with scientists needing the fame of being first)



Sacrieur said:


> Imagine if a religious group like the tea party got a strong hold on the government. They deem that evolution is harmful to children and mandate intelligent design instead because evolution has been thoroughly been shown to be wrong.
> 
> No one should have the power to censor speech. If you disagree with what someone has to say, then use your own voice to demonstrate discontent. It is up to us as a society to educate people so that they have skills to determine what is demonstratively false from what isn't. Giving that power to someone else is just begging for it to be corrupted.


So, imagine if the Tea Party has been taken over by a TV station which tells them what they want to hear and doesn't care if they have to lie or mix in their opinions. Or they attack the individual instead of the science.

I have no problems with them debating in universities about evolution and if they can come up with science that backs up that creationism had to of occurred or that climate change is caused by something else, that is fine. But using the right-wing media machine and telling tens of thousands of them to post comments on forums to make it look like their is doubt (because it will hurt big oil and coal companies that fund the right wing media and think tanks), then it is a problem. You get people who think they know the truth, even if they can't back it up. Or you get people who just hate the other side and will be against whatever they want like a cry-baby. They happen to not care that they are wrong and are very loud when they do it, causing other people who are too busy or don't follow the news closely to think there is a real debate and one side wants to keep things the way they are (and deal with problems later when they are dead in 30-40 years), and the other side wants to change the world and do more work on improving stuff, while taking money and power away from the biggest companies on the planet (that are also polluting it pretty bad).


----------



## diamondheart89

No, then they would just whine that it's a massive government conspiracy/coverup/they hate our free speech. It would only stoke their fires.


----------



## ugh1979

Sacrieur said:


> Yes.


Aren't you concerned that allowing extremists to have a loud a voice as anyone else in the media and in our schools could be damaging?



> And who is the one that gets to decide what's thoroughly been shown to be wrong?


The news editor/the education board/the forum moderators etc.



> Imagine if a religious group like the tea party got a strong hold on the government. They deem that evolution is harmful to children and mandate intelligent design instead because evolution has been thoroughly been shown to be wrong.


Well they'd need to get it past various courts, where it would fail.



> No one should have the power to censor speech. If you disagree with what someone has to say, then use your own voice to demonstrate discontent. It is up to us as a society to educate people so that they have skills to determine what is demonstratively false from what isn't. Giving that power to someone else is just begging for it to be corrupted.
> 
> Maybe I am far too cynical, but give someone an inch, and they'll take it a mile.


In an ideal world the best ideas would be communicated far more that the worst and always be the most obvious to believe. But they aren't, so as I say, there are some ideas which should rightfully be controlled or banned from being presented on the same level as those that have huge amounts of evidence to support them.

It's obviously far from black and white though.


----------



## ugh1979

Rich19 said:


> You guys are nuts a huge proportion of ppl think that man made climate change does not exist.


A huge proportion of people also believe in creationism and that we never landed on the moon, so what's your point?



> I don't outright deny it but there is by no means enogth evedince to confirm man made climate change


Read this: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

That's more than enough evidence.


----------



## ugh1979

Sacrieur said:


> Both people want to censor each other. Censorship quickly turns from protection to a personal service used to squelch dissident opinion.


I'm all for new ideas that are better than the old ones, so it's not about being against different ideas.

It's just that the new ideas need to be able to provide evidence of their worthiness.

The form of censorship I believe in is effectively the one used in the scientific community peer review system, where papers which don't meet a certain level of evidence based criteria don't get published.

The media just needs to make sure it's of a high enough journalistic quality where it fact checks rather than publishing unsubstantiated opinions as facts.

Thankfully some media outlets do this pretty well. Others not so much.


----------



## tennislover84

I don't think a lot of people realise how censored the mainstream media already is. It's really bad. I think people want to believe that the media is benevolent, and that what we see, hear and read gives us a mostly accurate picture of world events. It's psychologically upsetting to believe otherwise, so there's a strong motivator for people to wave their hands and think: "There must be a good reason why certain stories don't get picked up."

All the Snowden stuff *still* doesn't get picked up by the majority of newspapers. There are only about three big newspapers, in the mainstream, who will actually cover it.

Did any of you read about this story?

http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/

It's about two American congressmen who are asking for the declassification of redacted text, from Congress' report into 9/11. They read it, and were shocked to find that it apparently implicates another sovereign state (or perhaps more than one state), as having direct involvement in the attacks. But it's not Afghanistan, and obviously not Iraq. Ask yourself: if you haven't heard about this story, then why not? Isn't it hugely important? Where is the mainstream media coverage, besides this NY Post article?

Obviously the biggest question would be: if this information was known all along, why on earth wasn't this country attacked by the United States, in 2002? It's not necessary to have any beliefs regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories, in order to find this media silence very confusing, or the inevitable questions disturbing.

Just in case you don't think it's true, here's a link to Congressman Jones' personal website:

http://jones.house.gov/press-release/jones-introduces-resolution-declassify-911-report

I expect this seems like a very off-topic tangent to go down, but it really isn't. Saying that more media censorship is a good thing, is really, really dumb in this climate (no pun intended). I do understand the frustration when people ignore the peer reviewed science, but the issue of media censorship is much bigger than this. If we throw climate change deniers under the bus, by trying to ban them from expressing their views on the internet, it's making a statement that banning certain thoughts and discussion is OK, in some circumstances, _*even when it's not illegal.*_ Sorry to sound so dramatic, but I'm not even talking about conspiracy theories here, just facts.


----------



## BadGirl

^ There can't be too much "censorship" if the NY post was able to publish that. 
Newspapers are sometimes not allowed to publish stories due to possible adverse effects on on-going legal cases. 
The 9/11 story you link to is full of speculation - fodder for the conspiracy theorists and ammunition for the anti-Saudis.


----------



## ugh1979

tennislover84 said:


> I expect this seems like a very off-topic tangent to go down, but it really isn't. Saying that more media censorship is a good thing, is really, really dumb in this climate (no pun intended). I do understand the frustration when people ignore the peer reviewed science, but the issue of media censorship is much bigger than this. If we throw climate change deniers under the bus, by trying to ban them from expressing their views on the internet, it's making a statement that banning certain thoughts and discussion is OK, in some circumstances, _*even when it's not illegal.*_ Sorry to sound so dramatic, but I'm not even talking about conspiracy theories here, just facts.


If they have facts to back up their claim then there would be no reason to want them to be censored.

Look how harmful some of the medias coverage of child vaccines were. That was all based on one long retracted paper. The media gave it legs, and now thousands of children have suffered due to it.

It's really a case by case basis that the people responsible for the publication have to make to ensure they are publishing sound news and not crap, just for the sake of selling papers.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

ugh1979 said:


> I'm all for new ideas that are better than the old ones, so it's not about being against different ideas.
> 
> It's just that the new ideas need to be able to provide evidence of their worthiness.


 This is not the purpose of free speech. The idea is to give everyone a voice. When you stifle dissent, (regardless of whether or not you believe it's worthy) you subvert any appearance of freedom. The idea was that people have a right to be wrong. There is no reason you can't tell them you think they're wrong.



> The form of censorship I believe in is effectively the one used in the scientific community peer review system, where papers which don't meet a certain level of evidence based criteria don't get published.


 I'll not comment on that. :blank



> The media just needs to make sure it's of a high enough journalistic quality where it fact checks rather than publishing unsubstantiated opinions as facts.


 That would be your responsibility as a reader. To use your own judgment and not just accept everything you read as a plain fact.

If it really matters that much to you, start your own web site or something and publish your own opinions. That's what free speech was meant for. Diversity of opinion.


----------



## Sacrieur

ugh1979 said:


> I'm all for new ideas that are better than the old ones, so it's not about being against different ideas.
> 
> It's just that the new ideas need to be able to provide evidence of their worthiness.
> 
> The form of censorship I believe in is effectively the one used in the scientific community peer review system, where papers which don't meet a certain level of evidence based criteria don't get published.
> 
> The media just needs to make sure it's of a high enough journalistic quality where it fact checks rather than publishing unsubstantiated opinions as facts.
> 
> Thankfully some media outlets do this pretty well. Others not so much.


Science is a discipline of philosophy that employes inductive logic. Peer review's purpose looks for flaws in this logic. Not that it seems to be very effective in practice.

Philosophical and political views aren't like a science journal. They're less certain and more open to abstract ideas and concepts.

The first thing you're likely to be taught in any economics course is that people are greedy and selfish *******s. And it's true, too. If a power is given that can be used for self-interest, then it will inevitably be used for self-interest. The level of censorship that already exists is already used for self-interest.

Oh, and I'm just getting started.

It doesn't matter who's actually right, what matters is who the person with the biggest stick believes is right.


----------



## ugh1979

WillYouStopDave said:


> This is not the purpose of free speech. The idea is to give everyone a voice. When you stifle dissent, (regardless of whether or not you believe it's worthy) you subvert any appearance of freedom. The idea was that people have a right to be wrong. There is no reason you can't tell them you think they're wrong.


I didn't say they shouldn't have their voice in the appropriate forum. Everyone should be free to have avenues to prove the validity of what they are saying. Just not in schools and getting a free pass to the very loud voice of the mainstream media which can be harmful IMO. They need to earn their reach.

I don't think presenting the likes of conspiracy theories and scientific theories as equal is acceptable.



> That would be your responsibility as a reader. To use your own judgment and not just accept everything you read as a plain fact.


Unfortunately there are too many people who just believe what they read/told.

In the same respect, should we teach children everything, regardless of it's lack of justification, then just tell them to decide which they think is best?

I think sometimes there has to be a line where the people with influence should be responsible for not feeding people with nonsense.


----------



## ugh1979

Sacrieur said:


> Science is a discipline of philosophy that employes inductive logic. Peer review's purpose looks for flaws in this logic. Not that it seems to be very effective in practice.
> 
> Philosophical and political views aren't like a science journal. They're less certain and more open to abstract ideas and concepts.


If they are less certain then there's probably no case for censorship. It's the things that are far more certain that i'm talking about. There's a huge number of topics which are much more of a gray area than the likes of climate change in which I wouldn't advocate any censorship of.

As I say though, it's on a case by case basis with the pros and cons having to be weighed up. News editors obviously do this all the time.



> The first thing you're likely to be taught in any economics course is that people are greedy and selfish *******s. And it's true, too. If a power is given that can be used for self-interest, then it will inevitably be used for self-interest. The level of censorship that already exists is already used for self-interest.
> 
> Oh, and I'm just getting started.
> 
> It doesn't matter who's actually right, what matters is who the person with the biggest stick believes is right.


Of course this is what happens in the real world with many media outlets, but i'm talking about what I think ideally should happen. (And fortunately does with some)


----------



## Rich19

ugh1979 said:


> A huge proportion of people also believe in creationism and that we never landed on the moon, so what's your point?
> 
> Read this: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
> 
> That's more than enough evidence.


wow didn't know it was as high as 97% of climate scientists. But still the increase in temperature could have occurred naturally like it has in the past. I would like to believe as it encourages ppl to conserve resources and theres is a good chance we are causing the temperature increase but i can't support something as fact that has no real evidence.


----------



## Sacrieur

ugh1979 said:


> If they are less certain then there's probably no case for censorship. It's the things that are far more certain that i'm talking about. There's a huge number of topics which are much more of a gray area than the likes of climate change in which I wouldn't advocate any censorship of.
> 
> As I say though, it's on a case by case basis with the pros and cons having to be weighed up. News editors obviously do this all the time.


They do it with extreme bias all the time.



> Of course this is what happens in the real world with many media outlets, but i'm talking about what I think ideally should happen. (And fortunately does with some)


Well that's the problem isn't it. Censorship isn't a practical means by which to achieve your goal, so it should be abandoned.



Rich19 said:


> wow didn't know it was as high as 97% of climate scientists. But still the increase in temperature could have occurred naturally like it has in the past. I would like to believe as it encourages ppl to conserve resources and theres is a good chance we are causing the temperature increase but i can't support something as fact that has no real evidence.


I think this is probably a source of much misunderstanding.

So there's a lot of pretty deep analysis involved in climate research, but let me clarify what I know about what I understand of it in layman's terms. The idea that we're the cause is similar to the idea that knocking over a domino in the chain is the cause of the rest of them falling down. That's an oversimplification, and there's some nuance that I'm losing in the analogy, but that's the gist of it.

Our pollution is causing warming which is then triggering other (natural) events which cause even more warming. Here's an article which describes one such phenomenon. This is known as a positive feedback loop, and can have some pretty devastating consequences.

So that's why it's said that we're the cause. We pushed the Earth's climate a little bit too much which is causing a chain reaction that's leading to more warming. All that's left at this point is to curb our greenhouse gas emissions and hope that the Earth can return to normal.


----------



## ugh1979

Rich19 said:


> wow didn't know it was as high as 97% of climate scientists. But still the increase in temperature could have occurred naturally like it has in the past. I would like to believe as it encourages ppl to conserve resources and theres is a good chance we are causing the temperature increase but i can't support something as fact that has no real evidence.


So you saying that 97% of scientists are wrong, and that their evidence isn't valid, and you know better?


----------



## ugh1979

Sacrieur said:


> They do it with extreme bias all the time.


Not all news outlets are equally good/bad.



> Well that's the problem isn't it. Censorship isn't a practical means by which to achieve your goal, so it should be abandoned.


Do you really advocate completely removing the bull**** filter that news outlets operate (to different degrees), and that any story should be reported regardless of how ridiculous it is?

Something like all news outlets having the standards of Fox news or worse?

Remember quality control means censorship.


----------



## Rich19

Sacrieur said:


> They do it with extreme bias all the time.
> 
> Well that's the problem isn't it. Censorship isn't a practical means by which to achieve your goal, so it should be abandoned.
> 
> I think this is probably a source of much misunderstanding.
> 
> So there's a lot of pretty deep analysis involved in climate research, but let me clarify what I know about what I understand of it in layman's terms. The idea that we're the cause is similar to the idea that knocking over a domino in the chain is the cause of the rest of them falling down. That's an oversimplification, and there's some nuance that I'm losing in the analogy, but that's the gist of it.
> 
> Our pollution is causing warming which is then triggering other (natural) events which cause even more warming. Here's an article which describes one such phenomenon. This is known as a positive feedback loop, and can have some pretty devastating consequences.
> 
> So that's why it's said that we're the cause. We pushed the Earth's climate a little bit too much which is causing a chain reaction that's leading to more warming. All that's left at this point is to curb our greenhouse gas emissions and hope that the Earth can return to normal.


Hu? the article is on an expedition to identify the cause of methane gas release. Still it's to much of a leap to say we are significantly responsible in this chain of events. We just have not been industrialised long enogth for proper data to be gathered to compare with past temperature fluxiations


----------



## Sacrieur

ugh1979 said:


> Not all news outlets are equally good/bad.


Others are more unbiased than others, yes. Let them stand on those merits alone.



> Do you really advocate completely removing the bull**** filter that news outlets operate (to different degrees), and that any story should be reported regardless of how ridiculous it is?
> 
> Something like all news outlets having the standards of Fox news or worse?
> 
> Remember quality control means censorship.


I also support the right of the press. If a specific news outlet chooses to be biased, then let them be biased, it is their right. But I do not think they should. If you look back you'll find I've never mentioned anything about imposing anything on the press. I am simply supporting the notion that they shouldn't.

I do, however, support mandating that the government cannot censor people.

I do not believe that quality control is censorship. What someone says and how they say it are two different things. In fact, this principle is recognized by the US Supreme Court.



Rich19 said:


> Hu? the article is on an expedition to identify the cause of methane gas release. Still it's to much of a leap to say we are significantly responsible in this chain of events. We just have not been industrialised long enogth for proper data to be gathered to compare with past temperature fluxiations


I really am not the person to discuss it with that depth though. There's a series of videos on youtube that explain the whole thing quite well, though.

If you still have questions after that, then you'll probably have to take those questions to a forum that is much more knowledgeable of the topic.


----------



## ugh1979

Sacrieur said:


> Others are more unbiased than others, yes. Let them stand on those merits alone.


Indeed. I'm saying it's of merit not to publish conspiracy theories and the like, and the more that's done the better.



> I also support the right of the press. If a specific news outlet chooses to be biased, then let them be biased, it is their right. But I do not think they should.


I agree. Remember I was never talking about any legal ban on articles. Just what I think good journalism is in the public interest.



> I do not believe that quality control is censorship. What someone says and how they say it are two different things. In fact, this principle is recognized by the US Supreme Court.


Quality control involves actively choosing not to report on things which aren't credible. That's self censorship by the media outlet. It's choosing not to allow (censoring) the likes of climate change deniers a loud public voice.


----------



## Sacrieur

ugh1979 said:


> Quality control involves actively choosing not to report on things which aren't credible. That's self censorship by the media outlet. It's choosing not to allow (censoring) the likes of climate change deniers a loud public voice.


I believe some articulation is in order.

Consider anti-discrimination laws. The ADA prevents anyone from being treated based on the fact they have a disability, but if this disability prevents them from being able to perform the essential task (say, a paraplegic who wants to be a paramedic), then they're being rejected because they can't perform the task, not because they have a disability.

The same line of thinking would apply to censorship. An opinion piece that talks about climate change because it doesn't agree with the scientific consensus would be completely unjust discrimination. Opinion pieces, as you know, are subject to more lenient restrictions.

A story that doesn't supply credible sources and speaks out against the consensus shouldn't be published not because it speaks out against a consensus, but because it doesn't supply credible sources. If a piece was written with the headline, "Climiate Scientist rejects Global Warming," then should the article be censored because it isn't in line with the consensus? Or should it be published because the reporter's facts are credible (the scientist does in fact think and say the things supported in the article)?

Now that we're into more of a grey area, it should become clear that not publishing something because of its content is not the same as not publishing something because of how its content is presented.


----------



## Rich19

ugh1979 said:


> So you saying that 97% of scientists are wrong, and that their evidence isn't valid, and you know better?


 I never said they were wrong just that they can't present there views as fact. Some evidence supports their view but is not conclusive. If there all as pro "man induced climate change" as you guys then yeah I do


----------



## diamondheart89

Someone said something about this earlier, I just want to add to that: I think it's obvious that in many, many cases, the interests of newspapers and of the government (doesn't matter which party), align. The newspapers either ignore certain stories or emphasize certain ones in exchange for "scoops" and "sources". I mean, politics is the major thing keeping most news sites in business. It's not forced censorship, it's their own choice so that they stay favored and get new leads to politics scandals and the like. Anyone in DC will tell you that reporters suck up to politicians like hell. And vice versa.


----------



## Milco

Sacrieur said:


> I do not support censorship.


There's a difference between censorship and not giving people a platform though.
In the case of news papers for example, they really ought to report news and not just controversy or people making a fuss. News papers of course shouldn't be legally obligated in any way, but they do have a moral responsibility to educate their readers and not confuse them. Journalist check sources and gauge their credibility - that's what they're hired to do - so it's natural that people will trust what they read to some extent.
Publishing theories and ideas which lack credibility and which could pose a danger to important and necessary decisions thus only hinder people's ability to perform their duties in society and thus journalism would lose the reason why it has increased privileges in law over other areas.

I'm sure the media would cry censorship if they lose their privileges, but they didn't get them just for writing whatever they could get away with that would sell the most copies. They got them because they serve an important function in society.



diamondheart89 said:


> I think it's obvious that in many, many cases, the interests of newspapers and of the government (doesn't matter which party), align. The newspapers either ignore certain stories or emphasize certain ones in exchange for "scoops" and "sources".


Sadly very true.
The first thing you learn in journalism is to protect your sources and to stay good friends with people in power.
The alleged reasoning was that you needed to have access to the important stories and if politicians didn't want to talk to you, you couldn't get that. But the result is journalists often lose impartiality and line between PR and information gets blurred, if not outright torn down.

And because of the privileges journalists and the news media have, this can essentially result in "white washing" of information.
Politicians abuse power to leak classified information that benefits their political agenda and journalists print it to gain favours by said politicians or to sell copies and make money. But it can never be found out who was responsible as journalists can invoke legal rights to protect their sources even in criminal cases.
It happens too often.


----------



## Noca

Sacrieur said:


> I do not support censorship.


^ this. Censorship is not the way to deal with these imbeciles. I would think legislation such as removing these corporate funded climate change denying lobby group's "charity" status, is a start. Also exposing all their sources of funding, which will inevitably lead back to big energy corporations. Destroy their credibility instead of censoring.

I mean, even then, there are plenty of idiots, with a large portion of them residing in the United States, that will continue to believe whatever they are going to believe despite evidence contradicting their beliefs.

This reminds me about a psa I saw on tv about floods. I think the couple in this commercial remind me of what climate change deniers are like. They will continue to deny climate change even as water rises around their feet.


----------



## Gavroche

No, newspapers should not ban the views of those who are skeptical of information concerning anthropogenic global warming. 

Why? 

Because this isn't beneficial to the practice of science, it just creates more shadows, and makes people suspicious. Secondly, such views might be true and if not totally true, then these views might be partially true, and these partial truths are worth looking at. 

The people repeating the popular talking points think they are on the side of science by wanting to ban skeptics on this issue. This is absolutely ridiculous, and not in keeping with how modern science has been practiced.

Imagine if manifestly fraudulent ideas in the scientific community gained enough traction in terms of popularity to have people ban the publishing of ideas to the opposite effect? How inconsistent is this, to essentially proclaim certain findings as beyond questioning or examination? 

If you are so confident in the veracity of your position to want to ban the publishing of opposing views, why then can't you simply be so confident as to let the evidence continue to play out which you undoubtedly believe will be in your favor?


----------



## ugh1979

Rich19 said:


> I never said they were wrong just that they can't present there views as fact. Some evidence supports their view but is not conclusive. If there all as pro "man induced climate change" as you guys then yeah I do


Nothing can be proven with 100% certainty but the evidence overwhelmingly indicates it to be true.

The vast majority of evidence supports it. That's why 97% of scientists say it is.

If you think you know better i'd love to hear why.


----------



## ugh1979

Sacrieur said:


> I believe some articulation is in order.
> 
> Consider anti-discrimination laws. The ADA prevents anyone from being treated based on the fact they have a disability, but if this disability prevents them from being able to perform the essential task (say, a paraplegic who wants to be a paramedic), then they're being rejected because they can't perform the task, not because they have a disability.
> 
> The same line of thinking would apply to censorship. An opinion piece that talks about climate change because it doesn't agree with the scientific consensus would be completely unjust discrimination. Opinion pieces, as you know, are subject to more lenient restrictions.
> 
> A story that doesn't supply credible sources and speaks out against the consensus shouldn't be published not because it speaks out against a consensus, but because it doesn't supply credible sources. If a piece was written with the headline, "Climiate Scientist rejects Global Warming," then should the article be censored because it isn't in line with the consensus? Or should it be published because the reporter's facts are credible (the scientist does in fact think and say the things supported in the article)?
> 
> Now that we're into more of a grey area, it should become clear that not publishing something because of its content is not the same as not publishing something because of how its content is presented.


Indeed.


----------



## ugh1979

diamondheart89 said:


> Someone said something about this earlier, I just want to add to that: I think it's obvious that in many, many cases, the interests of newspapers and of the government (doesn't matter which party), align. The newspapers either ignore certain stories or emphasize certain ones in exchange for "scoops" and "sources". I mean, politics is the major thing keeping most news sites in business. It's not forced censorship, it's their own choice so that they stay favored and get new leads to politics scandals and the like. Anyone in DC will tell you that reporters suck up to politicians like hell. And vice versa.


The left wing press certainly doesn't typically align with a right wing government and vice versa.


----------



## ugh1979

Milco said:


> There's a difference between censorship and not giving people a platform though.
> In the case of news papers for example, they really ought to report news and not just controversy or people making a fuss. News papers of course shouldn't be legally obligated in any way, but they do have a moral responsibility to educate their readers and not confuse them. Journalist check sources and gauge their credibility - that's what they're hired to do - so it's natural that people will trust what they read to some extent.
> 
> Publishing theories and ideas which lack credibility and which could pose a danger to important and necessary decisions thus only hinder people's ability to perform their duties in society and thus journalism would lose the reason why it has increased privileges in law over other areas.
> 
> I'm sure the media would cry censorship if they lose their privileges, but they didn't get them just for writing whatever they could get away with that would sell the most copies. They got them because they serve an important function in society.


Exactly.


----------



## ugh1979

Gavroche said:


> No, newspapers should not ban the views of those who are skeptical of information concerning anthropogenic global warming.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because this isn't beneficial to the practice of science, it just creates more shadows, and makes people suspicious. Secondly, such views might be true and if not totally true, then these views might be partially true, and these partial truths are worth looking at.
> 
> The people repeating the popular talking points think they are on the side of science by wanting to ban skeptics on this issue. This is absolutely ridiculous, and not in keeping with how modern science has been practiced.
> 
> Imagine if manifestly fraudulent ideas in the scientific community gained enough traction in terms of popularity to have people ban the publishing of ideas to the opposite effect? How inconsistent is this, to essentially proclaim certain findings as beyond questioning or examination?
> 
> If you are so confident in the veracity of your position to want to ban the publishing of opposing views, why then can't you simply be so confident as to let the evidence continue to play out which you undoubtedly believe will be in your favor?


Nobody is saying papers that deny man made global warming shouldn't still be submitted to journals.

The point was that newspapers shouldn't then publish the claims the peer review process rejects.

If the science is credible, it can't be suppressed. (Despite what the conspiracy theorists like to think)


----------



## diamondheart89

ugh1979 said:


> The left wing press certainly doesn't typically align with a right wing government and vice versa.


It's either they demonize a politician/gov't they know would never favor them with scoops anyway, or they suck up to them in hopes of getting inside information. Sure this usually happens along party lines but it still means whoever is in power has a group of reporters who will defend them no matter what and another group that will demonize them no matter what.


----------



## Rich19

ugh1979 said:


> Nothing can be proven with 100% certainty but the evidence overwhelmingly indicates it to be true.
> 
> The vast majority of evidence supports it. That's why 97% of scientists say it is.
> 
> If you think you know better i'd love to hear why.


Iv'e already said why! sure you can't prove anything 100% which is why you gather evedince until you can conclude something beyond all reasonable doubt. What overwhelming evedince!!! so global temperatures have increased in the last 200 years which happens to be correlated with an increase in greenhouse gases which have been proven to trap ultraviolet light within the worlds atmosphere, so what!!!. The science is there but not the numbers.* As far as I can tell your no better than someone who thinks that a singal cow can regulate it's planets temperature by deciding how often to fart. *Stupid right? but there could still be a correlation between methane gas and temperature increase.

To clarify my argument *your probably right *but you can't claim your view as fact without finding evedince that this increase is due to mans activities and not natural processes and you certainly can't censor the media.

Also it's 97% of climate scientists not 97% of scientists.


----------



## ugh1979

Rich19 said:


> Iv'e already said why!


All you've said is that the increase in temperature could have occurred naturally like it has in the past. The evidence overwhelming says otherwise.



> sure you can't prove anything 100% which is why you gather evedince until you can conclude something beyond all reasonable doubt.


This has already happened.



> What overwhelming evedince!!!


Both Sacrieur and myself have provided you with links to the evidence. You obviously just dismissed them and chose to keep saying that there's no evidence.



> so global temperatures have increased in the last 200 years which happens to be correlated with an increase in greenhouse gases which have been proven to trap ultraviolet light within the worlds atmosphere, so what!!!. The science is there but not the numbers.* As far as I can tell your no better than someone who thinks that a singal cow can regulate it's planets temperature by deciding how often to fart. *Stupid right? but there could still be a correlation between methane gas and temperature increase.
> 
> To clarify my argument *your probably right *but you can't claim your view as fact without finding evedince that this increase is due to mans activities and not natural processes and you certainly can't censor the media.


You need to get up to date on climate science, as you are clearly very out of touch.



> Also it's 97% of climate scientists not 97% of scientists.


It's probably more than 97% of scientists in general, since scientists are more inclined to believe other scientists.

Why are you so sure the 97% of climate scientists haven't published evidence for man made global warming?

The link I gave you earlier cites published papers with the evidence. Do you dispute the existence of those papers and the thousands like them?


----------



## Rich19

ugh1979 said:


> All you've said is that the increase in temperature could have occurred naturally like it has in the past. The evidence overwhelming says otherwise.
> 
> This has already happened.
> 
> Both Sacrieur and myself have provided you with links to the evidence. You obviously just dismissed them and chose to keep saying that there's no evidence.
> 
> You need to get up to date on climate science, as you are clearly very out of touch.
> 
> It's probably more than 97% of scientists in general, since scientists are more inclined to believe other scientists.
> 
> Why are you so sure the 97% of climate scientists haven't published evidence for man made global warming?
> 
> The link I gave you earlier cites published papers with the evidence. Do you dispute the existence of those papers and the thousands like them?


lol i did respect you but now i don't. 
You keep saying i'm not acknowledging your data. *I do honestly, it seems legit and I fully support that it is evedince for man made climate change so stop saying that i'm denying it because it's in writing.*

I'm clearly out of touch lol may I ask what part of what I said was false or do you just call everyone who does not agree with you out of touch?.
You think I should do my own research! No! If I spent the rest of my life looking through current data I would never disprove your view beyond all Reasonable doubt. I'm supporting the view that neither theory can be proven beyond all Reasonable doubt.

lol so you think that because 97% of scientists support something I have to believe without any evidence. Yes well done very scientific


----------



## ugh1979

Rich19 said:


> lol i did respect you but now i don't.
> You keep saying i'm not acknowledging your data. *I do honestly, it seems legit and I fully support that it is evedince for man made climate change so stop saying that i'm denying it because it's in writing.*


You are rejecting the fact that the vast vast majority of credible evidence indicates man made global warming.



> I'm clearly out of touch lol may I ask what part of what I said was false or do you just call everyone who does not agree with you out of touch?.
> You think I should do my own research! No! If I spent the rest of my life looking through current data I would never disprove your view beyond all Reasonable doubt. I'm supporting the view that neither theory can be proven beyond all Reasonable doubt.


You are supporting a position that there is a substantial amount of credible evidence for current global warming *not *being man made. What are you basing that on? It's clearly not scientific papers. Is it websites? The media? Books?

Research Reveals Almost All Climate Science Denial Books Linked To Conservative Think Tanks



> lol so you think that because 97% of scientists support something I have to believe without any evidence. Yes well done very scientific


You just acknowledged there is evidence. Are you now saying there isn't any evidence? :?


----------



## Sacrieur

You know Ugh, you'll find it's easier if you talk to people rather than down at them.


----------



## ugh1979

Sacrieur said:


> You know Ugh, you'll find it's easier if you talk to people rather than down at them.


I feel i'm dealing with him appropriately. I don't see why I should treat such views with respect.


----------



## Sacrieur

ugh1979 said:


> I feel i'm dealing with him appropriately. I don't see why I should treat such views with respect.


The view? No, ideas need no such sentiments. People, yes.


----------



## tennislover84

So Ugh, I'm guessing that you agree with moderators of internet discussions deleting "climate change denial" posts, banning IP addresses, etc. I don't think that's a good thing to do, but I already said why. Privately owned websites can do things like that, if they want to. If I've guessed wrong, then please correct me. In the original post, you just linked to an article and said that it was great news, so I'm not completely sure what your position is.

Anyway, when it comes to mainstream news sources, how do you suggest "banning" the offending viewpoints? Are you simply voicing your displeasure, and hoping for a change in editorial policies, or are you advocating a literal kind of ban? Beyond encouraging people to stop reading/watching biased sources, there are few methods available to stop privately owned newspapers from printing whatever they want. I think you'd need some kind of "anti-climate change denial" legislation. :|

In Britain at least, while there are press watchdogs tasked with examining fairness and bias; they're mostly concerned about the rights of individuals, or companies. There's not a lot to stop the press from telling lies, as you put it, as long as it's not about an entity capable of suing. There's a lot of focus on so-called "balanced" coverage of everything. I'm really not sure how one would go about legislating for only telling the "truth", and banning everything else. In an ideal world, that would be great, but in practice it seems both impossible and a gateway to media totalitarianism.


----------



## Rich19

ugh1979 said:


> You are rejecting the fact that the vast vast majority of credible evidence indicates man made global warming.
> 
> You are supporting a position that there is a substantial amount of credible evidence for current global warming *not *being man made. What are you basing that on? It's clearly not scientific papers. Is it websites? The media? Books?
> 
> Research Reveals Almost All Climate Science Denial Books Linked To Conservative Think Tanks
> 
> You just acknowledged there is evidence. Are you now saying there isn't any evidence? :?


lol again

So you have counted each peice of evidence lol. So you don't care about what the evidence actually says just the quantity of it???

Nope i'm not sure there is any evidence that shows global warming is not man made:b. I know plenty that show that global temperatures can be changed by natural causes tho:yes bases on fossil evedince but feel free to ignore that like you have everything else iv'e said.

Oh I meant no conclusive evidence sorry (as if that was the only thing you picked up on:sus)

Oh no you got me i'm an extreme conservative out to destroy the earth by raising the temperature by millions of degrees till only we tougth as nails conservatives are left


----------



## ugh1979

tennislover84 said:


> So Ugh, I'm guessing that you agree with moderators of internet discussions deleting "climate change denial" posts, banning IP addresses, etc.


In general yes, as per how Reddit and certain publications deal with it.



> I don't think that's a good thing to do, but I already said why. Privately owned websites can do things like that, if they want to. If I've guessed wrong, then please correct me. In the original post, you just linked to an article and said that it was great news, so I'm not completely sure what your position is.
> 
> Anyway, when it comes to mainstream news sources, how do you suggest "banning" the offending viewpoints? Are you simply voicing your displeasure, and hoping for a change in editorial policies, or are you advocating a literal kind of ban? Beyond encouraging people to stop reading/watching biased sources, there are few methods available to stop privately owned newspapers from printing whatever they want. I think you'd need some kind of "anti-climate change denial" legislation. :|
> 
> In Britain at least, while there are press watchdogs tasked with examining fairness and bias; they're mostly concerned about the rights of individuals, or companies. There's not a lot to stop the press from telling lies, as you put it, as long as it's not about an entity capable of suing. There's a lot of focus on so-called "balanced" coverage of everything. I'm really not sure how one would go about legislating for only telling the "truth", and banning everything else. In an ideal world, that would be great, but in practice it seems both impossible and a gateway to media totalitarianism.


I've never mentioned any legislation. Just what I deem virtuous journalism/moderation.

This article is very interesting.

How 9 major papers deal with climate denying letters

I certainly side with the likes of the Los Angles Times editor for example.


----------



## ericastooge

It use to been called global warming, now it's called climate change. Before global warming it was global cooling.


----------



## Classified

^Science can change when presented with new facts.



Rich19 said:


> I know plenty that show that global temperatures can be changed by natural causes tho:yes bases on fossil evedince but feel free to ignore that like you have everything else iv'e said.


What "natural causes" have occurred in the past 100 years though?

I understand that there is some stuff we need to understand better, but still there haven't been multiple super volcanoes or a giant meteoroid impacting the Earth to really mess with the climate.

The big problem is that the climate denier groups have been able to get their base to equate conservation and reduced pollution as a left-wing thing that they hate and won't support at all. They flood the media and internet with posts saying the same untrue things over and over, just to make their 'rugged individual' herd start to believe that there is some conspiracy or agenda.

It is telling when even the studies funded by the deniers come to the same conclusion though.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/


----------



## ugh1979

Rich19 said:


> lol again
> 
> So you have counted each peice of evidence lol.


All I need to do is observe the ratio of published papers which claim or refute it. It's a pretty easy thing to do to in order to form a credible idea of right and wrong on many subjects.



> So you don't care about what the evidence actually says just the quantity of it???


If I didn't care what the evidence said how could I be taking any stance on the subject?



> Nope i'm not sure there is any evidence that shows global warming is not man made:b.


So what are you forming your opinions on if it's not evidence based? Blind faith? Fox News?



> I know plenty that show that global temperatures can be changed by natural causes tho:yes bases on fossil evedince but feel free to ignore that like you have everything else iv'e said.


Climate scientists are aware of climate changes by natural causes. Do you really think they are just ignoring that? :roll



> Oh I meant no conclusive evidence sorry (as if that was the only thing you picked up on:sus)


Thousands of published papers that support man made global warming and almost no published papers that deny it is conclusive enough evidence for any rational person.


----------



## ugh1979

ericastooge said:


> It use to been called global warming, now it's called climate change. Before global warming it was global cooling.


It's still called global warming. Climate change is just another term that can be used.


----------



## tennislover84

ugh1979 said:


> I've never mentioned any legislation. Just what I deem virtuous journalism/moderation.


Yes, I didn't mean to infer that you had mentioned it. I was just thinking out loud, as it wasn't clear what the "ban" in the thread title would mean. Even reading the article you originally linked to, I was a bit confused about what was being called for.


----------



## Sacrieur

ericastooge said:


> It use to been called global warming, now it's called climate change. Before global warming it was global cooling.


I would like to clear this up.

It's been called global warming, it's still called global warming, and it's still going to be called global warming.

That doesn't stop the media from putting a spin on it, though.


----------



## Rich19

Classified said:


> ^Science can change when presented with new facts.
> 
> What "natural causes" have occurred in the past 100 years though?
> 
> I understand that there is some stuff we need to understand better, but still there haven't been multiple super volcanoes or a giant meteoroid impacting the Earth to really mess with the climate.
> 
> The big problem is that the climate denier groups have been able to get their base to equate conservation and reduced pollution as a left-wing thing that they hate and won't support at all. They flood the media and internet with posts saying the same untrue things over and over, just to make their 'rugged individual' herd start to believe that there is some conspiracy or agenda.
> 
> It is telling when even the studies funded by the deniers come to the same conclusion though.
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/


solar flares, gradual shift in the earths orbit around the sun, celestial changes to name a few natural changes which have been happening 100yrs +

I don't care about the politics, I have no hidden agenda as to why I don't want anyone opposing anthropogenic climate change to be censored. I only bothered to research any of this because it interests me.


----------



## Rich19

ugh1979 said:


> All I need to do is observe the ratio of published papers which claim or refute it. It's a pretty easy thing to do to in order to form a credible idea of right and wrong on many subjects.
> 
> If I didn't care what the evidence said how could I be taking any stance on the subject?
> 
> So what are you forming your opinions on if it's not evidence based? Blind faith? Fox News?
> 
> Climate scientists are aware of climate changes by natural causes. Do you really think they are just ignoring that? :roll
> 
> Lol what??? where did you get that idea from. you asked what i was basing my argument on, which i got from scientists, how could they ignore it lol
> 
> Thousands of published papers that support man made global warming and almost no published papers that deny it is conclusive enough evidence for any rational person.


well your basing you view on the quantity of data not the quality, like you already said. Anyway i'm beginning to understand your narrow way of thinking. 
you think if I'm not for anthropogenic climate change I must believe that it's natural or support some other theory right?????:yes

lol yes all hail fox news


----------



## ugh1979

Rich19 said:


> well your basing you view on the quantity of data not the quality,


Don't you realise that it needs to be quality evidence to be published in scientific journals? It's quality *and *quantity which makes it overwhelming evidence.



> Anyway i'm beginning to understand your narrow way of thinking.


Apparenlty not going by what you just said.



> you think if I'm not for anthropogenic climate change I must believe that it's natural or support some other theory right?????:yes


No you said you think it's totally open. That's what I called you out on.


----------



## Rich19

ugh1979 said:


> Don't you realise that it needs to be quality evidence to be published in scientific journals? It's quality *and *quantity which makes it overwhelming evidence.
> 
> Apparenlty not going by what you just said.
> 
> No you said you think it's totally open. That's what I called you out on.


oh ok i have no idea as to why your so narrow minded:b, still have not showed me this overwhelming evidence tho, just a graph of global temperature increase. can you send me a link plz


----------



## ugh1979

Rich19 said:


> oh ok i have no idea as to why your so narrow minded:b,


In what way is rejecting conspiracy theories and such like which have no/little credible evidence a sign of being narrow minded?

To the contrary, i'm open to all ideas that can show have merit. Until then I have no reason to consider them plausible. That's called using rationality.



> still have not showed me this overwhelming evidence tho, just a graph of global temperature increase. can you send me a link plz


I've given you it multiple times, but you just keep refusing to read it for some reason.

All you seem to have done is looked at the graph at the top of the page and then ignore all the extracts from statements on the subject by a multitude of credible scientific associations which are based on evidence published in 17 papers as cited on the page.

Here's the link again.

If that's not enough evidence for you can you explain why?


----------



## tennislover84

I was thinking about this a little further, and the problem may be just as much a refusal to accept exponential growth models as being unsustainable, rather than just the denial of human involvement in climate change. I mean, one thing leads to the other. If "economic stagnation" isn't tolerated by any of the leading technological and industrial nations... and there's no all-encompassing, equally profitable alternative to continued production and consumption of fossil fuels, in order to chase the desired growth rate... then the continued use of fossil fuels is bound to happen... right?

In order to change this situation, before we completely ruin the eco-system, then we might have to do more than alert people to the reality of climate change. We might need to transition to a culture where it's OK to *not* have growth, in terms of production, consumption, birth rate and yes... profit margins, levels of debt, and all of those pillars of the modern world economy.

So who is in favour of the newspapers banning "finite resource deniers"? :b The ideological belief in the superiority of unrestricted capitalism, with no focus on self-sustainability, requires the denial of things like climate change, peak oil, and the inevitable collapse of the system itself.


----------



## Striving towards Eunoia

Personally...no. I don't believe one way or the other with climate change simply because of my parents following one political path and my community following the other, but blocking any form of article even if they have proof can be dangerous. I'm not calling it censorship, but knowing Reddit they must have gotten fed up with "disproving" articles because it's well known to be a left-sided community, as well as the occasional joke article.


----------



## ugh1979

Striving towards Eunoia said:


> Personally...no. I don't believe one way or the other with climate change simply because of my parents following one political path and my community following the other,


So you are saying you only believe what your parents and community tell you?



> but blocking any form of article even if they have proof can be dangerous.


It's often more dangerous to publish articles that have no or very dubious proof to substantiate their claims.

Why do you think basically nobody publishes Holocaust denial articles anymore?


----------



## Striving towards Eunoia

My parents believe one way and my community another, so if I believed both what my parents and my community said I'd believe everything. Which isn't what I said. Read more carefully.


----------



## ugh1979

Striving towards Eunoia said:


> My parents believe one way and my community another, so if I believed both what my parents and my community said I'd believe everything. Which isn't what I said. Read more carefully.


You should read what you wrote more carefully, as you gave the reason for *your * indecision on the subject to be due to your parents believing one thing and your community believing another.

That makes is sound like you only believe things that they tell you, and if there is a conflict between the two you abstain from having a belief on the subject, which is very strange.

Hence why I inferred you should think for yourself about the subject rather than conform with your parents or communities beliefs.

Is it because your parents and community don't tolerate beliefs that are different than theirs, so if there is any conflict you just chose not to form a belief?


----------



## BadGirl

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." 
Noam Chomsky


----------



## ugh1979

BadGirl said:


> "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
> Noam Chomsky


That doesn't mean newspapers should publish claims that aren't substantiated.


----------



## BadGirl

ugh1979 said:


> That doesn't mean newspapers should publish claims that aren't substantiated.


Maybe they shouldn't but they do & they should be able to because we try to have a free press. 
On the subject of man-made global warming causing climate change, we'll just have to keep referring people to the 99.7% of scientists who are speaking the truth. 
On a personal level, I find it quite distressing that some religious people do not accept the findings of 99.9% of scientists.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

BadGirl said:


> "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
> Noam Chomsky


 I really don't like that guy but that's putting it about as well as anyone can (if you want the short version).



ugh1979 said:


> That doesn't mean newspapers should publish claims that aren't substantiated.


 Maybe we should change our ideas about what a newspaper is supposed to be. A newspaper doesn't have an obligation to tell the truth. They're not under oath in a courtroom

The First Amendment says nothing if it doesn't say that you have a right to publish your version of reality.

Your problem is that you're upset with people for believing everything they read. Sorry but the problem is that people need to be taught critical thinking skills. You can't force everyone who ever publishes anything to be 100% honest just because some idiot somewhere might read it and believe Obama is an alien or something.


----------



## Sacrieur

http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/image_full/public/Powell%20Pie%20Chart%202.png?itok=gg8gKEAg


----------



## ugh1979

BadGirl said:


> Maybe they shouldn't but they do & they should be able to because we try to have a free press.


Again, nobody is talking about legislation that infringes on the current freedom of the press. This thread is about the moral obligation the press should have to not misguide people by publishing unsubstantiated claims that can in turn be perceived as credible to it's readers.

It's unfortunate some newspapers act immorally and favour unjust sensationalist headlines and mud slinging over quality journalism to increase/sustain sales.

I choose to ignore the papers that do that, but i'm aware of the power they have over large portions of society, so when they abuse that power by misguiding people with poor journalism it irks me.



> On the subject of man-made global warming causing climate change, we'll just have to keep referring people to the 99.7% of scientists who are speaking the truth.


Indeed.



> On a personal level, I find it quite distressing that some religious people do not accept the findings of 99.9% of scientists.


Yes it is worrying when people are so staunch in their delusions that they refuse to accept what can be considered facts.


----------



## ugh1979

WillYouStopDave said:


> Maybe we should change our ideas about what a newspaper is supposed to be.


That depends on what our ideas of what a newspaper is supposed to be.



> A newspaper doesn't have an obligation to tell the truth. They're not under oath in a courtroom
> 
> The First Amendment says nothing if it doesn't say that you have a right to publish your version of reality.


Indeed there is rarely any legal obligation that it has to tell the truth, but it should have a moral and professional obligation to publish quality journalism.

This is of course entirely optional, hence when we have some terrible media outlets.



> Your problem is that you're upset with people for believing everything they read. Sorry but the problem is that people need to be taught critical thinking skills. You can't force everyone who ever publishes anything to be 100% honest just because some idiot somewhere might read it and believe Obama is an alien or something.


Many people's poor critical thinking skills is one half of the problem. The other half is bad journalism.

If "children" are given a bad education, they will always struggle have credible knowledgeable views.


----------



## ugh1979

Sacrieur said:


>


Exactly!

That statistic makes denying man-made global warming an idiotic position.


----------



## Zeppelin

No because of the 1st amendment ( right to free speech).


----------



## ugh1979

Zeppelin said:


> No because of the 1st amendment ( right to free speech).


You've not understood the question. This isn't a legislative issue.

Newspapers choosing *not *to give a platform to certain opinions (self "censorship/banning") is a result of the free press.


----------



## zstandig

I think climate talk should be banned. Complaining and whining about it won't solve it. I want to hear climate adaptation.


----------



## HelpfulHero

Probably so, we just don't have time for their fake bull**** anymore


----------



## Sacrieur




----------



## Bloat

The Earth's historical climates has shown that temperatures changes in time.

So climate change is normal, and frankly I'd be more afraid of this Ice Age than global warming. We are in the interglacial period right now, waiting for the next glacial period.

It irks me when people with no clue about the Earth's past who whimper on about how humans are destroying the planet, the environment, other animals and the likes.
:|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age#Glacials_and_interglacials

Feel free to check out the references in that entry.


----------



## ugh1979

Bloat said:


> The Earth's historical climates has shown that temperatures changes in time.
> 
> So climate change is normal, and frankly I'd be more afraid of this Ice Age than global warming. We are in the interglacial period right now, waiting for the next glacial period.
> 
> It irks me when people with no clue about the Earth's past who whimper on about how humans are destroying the planet, the environment, other animals and the likes.
> :|
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age#Glacials_and_interglacials
> 
> Feel free to check out the references in that entry.












It irks me when people think climate scientists don't know about natural climate change.


----------



## bottleofblues

Nah i believe in freedom of speech, idiots deserve to have their say as well. The only exception to this is if you are promoting hatred and violence against a group of people.


----------



## ugh1979

bottleofblues said:


> Nah i believe in freedom of speech, idiots deserve to have their say as well. The only exception to this is if you are promoting hatred and violence against a group of people.


This isn't about stopping free speech. It's about newspapers taking responsibility for not spreading misinformation.

Anyone can and should be allowed to publish what they want unless it breaks the law.


----------



## bottleofblues

ugh1979 said:


> This isn't about stopping free speech. It's about newspapers taking responsibility for not spreading misinformation.
> 
> Anyone can and should be allowed to publish what they want unless it breaks the law.


You'd have to ban a lot of newspapers if want to not spread misinformation, for example Time magazine has a very right wing pro american viewpoint, and so (subtly of course) they will tend to present current events according to their views.
The Guardian newspaper is left wing, so will tend to point out the evils of capitalism etc. Newspapers quite often have their own agenda, the best one's are the most neutral ones in my opinion.
To quote the song freedom of speech by Ice T:

'_Your opinion is yours, my opinion is mine
If you don't like what i'm saying, fine
but don't close it, always keep an open mind
a man who fails to listen is blind_


----------



## bottleofblues

Bloat said:


> The Earth's historical climates has shown that temperatures changes in time.
> 
> So climate change is normal, and frankly I'd be more afraid of this Ice Age than global warming. We are in the interglacial period right now, waiting for the next glacial period.
> 
> It irks me when people with no clue about the Earth's past who whimper on about how humans are destroying the planet, the environment, other animals and the likes.
> :|
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age#Glacials_and_interglacials
> 
> Feel free to check out the references in that entry.


But we are destroying the planet and so many animal species have become extinct because of humans, even the climate change deniers will tell you that. We have to find more eco friendly and sustainable ways of living not just for the health of the planet, but for our own future generations to come.


----------



## lonelyjew

I listened to a great podcast with a scientist who is a skeptic of man made global warming, and by skeptic, I mean SKEPTIC, as in she doesn't deny it, but isn't so sure that it is as set in stone as people make it out to be. Her basic argument, which I buy whole heatedly, is that weather is insanely complicated and there are no models in existence that come close to being able to accurately predict anything but very near term weather accurately. Greenhouse gasses are one small part of a massive system, and because changing one variable will change many others, many of which we aren't aware of, it is hard to say exactly what will happen long term, because there is just too much we don't know.

Another point that she made was to say that the whole obsession with global warming is destroying the field of climatology. She said, and I believe here, that all the grants ($$) go to people who are vocal about global warming so big surprise that everyone is trying to be as vocal as possible about it, and make useless models, which don't add anything of substance to climate science. Because nobody is funding basic science, no scientists are making fundamentally new discoveries, and the whole field is stagnating as a result.


----------



## ugh1979

bottleofblues said:


> You'd have to ban a lot of newspapers if want to not spread misinformation, for example Time magazine has a very right wing pro american viewpoint, and so (subtly of course) they will tend to present current events according to their views.
> The Guardian newspaper is left wing, so will tend to point out the evils of capitalism etc. Newspapers quite often have their own agenda, the best one's are the most neutral ones in my opinion.
> To quote the song freedom of speech by Ice T:
> 
> '_Your opinion is yours, my opinion is mine
> If you don't like what i'm saying, fine
> but don't close it, always keep an open mind
> a man who fails to listen is blind_












Who's talking about banning newspapers?

Fancy a third crack at a legitimate reply?


----------



## Classified

lonelyjew said:


> I listened to a great podcast with a scientist who is a skeptic of man made global warming, and by skeptic, I mean SKEPTIC, as in she doesn't deny it, but isn't so sure that it is as set in stone as people make it out to be. Her basic argument, which I buy whole heatedly, is that weather is insanely complicated and there are no models in existence that come close to being able to accurately predict anything but very near term weather accurately. Greenhouse gasses are one small part of a massive system, and because changing one variable will change many others, many of which we aren't aware of, it is hard to say exactly what will happen long term, because there is just too much we don't know.
> 
> Another point that she made was to say that the whole obsession with global warming is destroying the field of climatology. She said, and I believe here, that all the grants ($$) go to people who are vocal about global warming so big surprise that everyone is trying to be as vocal as possible about it, and make useless models, which don't add anything of substance to climate science. Because nobody is funding basic science, no scientists are making fundamentally new discoveries, and the whole field is stagnating as a result.


It is fine if you have actual scientific data or question the scientific methods used. That isn't what most of the Reddit and other comments are about though. And giving a voice to lots of retired old guys who probably started hating environmentalists when they had to go to Vietnam in the 60s and the "back to the Earth" hippies stayed here or in Canada and had a good time. Then they have made lots of money off exploiting the people by selling the natural resources and leaving behind a mess for the past 40 years.


----------



## bottleofblues

ugh1979 said:


> Who's talking about banning newspapers?
> 
> Fancy a third crack at a legitimate reply?


Well you said newspapers should take responsibility for spreading misinformation, i'm just saying a lot of newspapers have your have their own viewpoint which can be biased and can result in misinformation.
That legitimate enough for you?
Its important to encourage healthy debate like what we do here on these forums and scepticism isn't always a bad thing. You shouldn't repress what somebody is saying just because you don't like it.


----------



## ugh1979

bottleofblues said:


> Well you said newspapers should take responsibility for spreading misinformation, i'm just saying a lot of newspapers have your have their own viewpoint which can be biased and can result in misinformation.


It was your point about banning newspapers I had issue with, as it inferred a misunderstanding of the question. Several other people made the same mistake. (I appreciate the article title using the word 'ban' could have been confusing for some)

Of course the accuracy of information is subject to bias across different papers, but the OP was about the question of newspapers making sure via good responsible journalism that they aren't giving a platform to gross misinformation such as denial of man made climate change and promotion of vaccine conspiracy theories etc.

Those are two contentious areas which any 'good' journalist (i.e. one who fact checks) wouldn't publish articles on supporting.



> Its important to encourage healthy debate like what we do here on these forums and scepticism isn't always a bad thing. You shouldn't repress what somebody is saying just because you don't like it.


I promote debate on these forums every day, and of course skepticism is part of that. My issue wasn't with you taking part, it was that you hadn't understood the question. If you had you wouldn't have talked about curtailing of free speech or banning of newspapers, as at no point was it talking about legislation.


----------



## ugh1979

Classified said:


> It is fine if you have actual scientific data or question the scientific methods used. That isn't what most of the Reddit and other comments are about though. And giving a voice to lots of retired old guys who probably started hating environmentalists when they had to go to Vietnam in the 60s and the "back to the Earth" hippies stayed here or in Canada and had a good time. Then they have made lots of money off exploiting the people by selling the natural resources and leaving behind a mess for the past 40 years.


Indeed. If someone with expertise on the subject actually has a decent argument then let's hear it.

Stats like the below give a clear indication of the probability of her being wrong though, so I know who i'd be inclined to believe.


----------



## bottleofblues

ugh1979 said:


> It was your point about banning newspapers I had issue with, as it inferred a misunderstanding of the question. Several other people made the same mistake. (I appreciate the article title using the word 'ban' could have been confusing for some)
> 
> Of course the accuracy of information is subject to bias across different papers, but the OP was about the question of newspapers making sure via good responsible journalism that they aren't giving a platform to gross misinformation such as denial of man made climate change and promotion of vaccine conspiracy theories etc.
> 
> Those are two contentious areas which any 'good' journalist (i.e. one who fact checks) wouldn't publish articles on supporting.
> 
> I promote debate on these forums every day, and of course skepticism is part of that. My issue wasn't with you taking part, it was that you hadn't understood the question. If you had you wouldn't have talked about curtailing of free speech or banning of newspapers, as at no point was it talking about legislation.


Fair enough, look i'm a believer that climate change is man made, but i have also the naysayers saying that the climate change believers are guilty of doing what you are talking about. I've heard them refer to some of the studys as 'junk science.'
I'm not saying it is, there are 1000s of the worlds top scientists who believe it is man made, and a tiny vocal minority (often with vested interests) who deny it. As long as journalists give time to those with objectionable views and opinions they should get their say. But i agree you shouldn't give newspaper space to idiots and extremists.
Like for example that guy who was an expert in capital punishment, he designed many of the death gas chambers in U.S, he was a holocaust denier, he denied that the jews were gassed to death at all. He became a pariah because of it. If i had my own liberal magazine i wouldn't put that in it because its just sheer lunacy, i've seen the photos of mounds of corpses piled high of course it happened.
But if a climate naysayer wrote an article that was balanced and factual i'd probably print not because i agree with it but because i think debate is healthy. And i'd probably put right after that article a piece by a believer, let the reader hear both sides and make up his own mind.


----------



## MrKappa

lonelyjew said:


> I listened to a great podcast with a scientist who is a skeptic of man made global warming, and by skeptic, I mean SKEPTIC, as in she doesn't deny it, but isn't so sure that it is as set in stone as people make it out to be. Her basic argument, which I buy whole heatedly, is that weather is insanely complicated and there are no models in existence that come close to being able to accurately predict anything but very near term weather accurately.


Sure possible... I've also seen people set up huge counter arguments to the debate, explaining away the CO2 rise to an increase in the heat from the earth. Warm water releases CO2.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought.html



> As the world's oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved carbon dioxide may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect, according to a new study.
> 
> The oceans capture around 30 per cent of human carbon dioxide emissions and hide it in their depths. This slows the march of global warming somewhat. But climate records from the end of the last ice age show that as temperatures climb, the trend reverses and the oceans emit CO2, which exacerbates warming.
> 
> Previous studies have suggested that it takes between 400 and 1300 years for this to happen. But now the most precise analysis to date has whittled that figure down.


I was sold on the idea, but then months later I went back and the article was gone and later investigations revealed he worked for a surveying company.

Sure... surveyors have the practical experience up front and the scientific backgrounds, but they are also involved in politics.

So it's where science and politics meet. So no... they shouldn't ban people in a free for all place because they hold opinions. Jokers and trolls, or investment types alike.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...t-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/










It's all magma down there after all...






Alternative theories are totally welcome in my books. Especially in an open forum with no predefined directives. Political boards are open to political debate. I guess other venues are a little more strict, as in, the ones that follow Ivey league debate rules. Or forums which are aligned to a specific wavelength, like a Christian forum is certainly not going to allow someone to post murder pictures from the scene of a crime to discuss the crime (most of the time).

They've only recently mapped the sea mounts on the sea floor, and there is more volcanic activity there than anywhere else. Significantly more. Hundreds of thousands of eruptions (not all active, but yeah, there are ALOT).

http://gizmodo.com/scientists-found-the-worlds-largest-volcano-on-ocean-f-1258701026



> The biggest volcano ever found on Earth-one of the biggest we know of in the solar system-has been hidden for ages. But now scientists have found it, just chillin' beneath the sea. It's a monster.


Combine that with historical periods of oceanic anoxic event, and yeah, you've got a real possibility that goes dead smack in the face of every possible political sect known to man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event#Occurrence



> Oceanic anoxic events most commonly occurred during periods of very warm climate characterized by high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and mean surface temperatures probably in excess of 25 °C (77 °F). The Quaternary levels, our current period, are just 13 °C (55 °F) in comparison. Such rises in carbon dioxide may have been in response to a great outgassing of the highly flammable natural gas (methane) some have christened an "oceanic burp".[4][6] Vast quantities of methane are normally locked into the Earth's crust on the continental plateaus in one of the many deposits consisting of compounds of methane hydrate, a solid precipitated combination of methane and water much like ice. Because the methane hydrates are unstable, save at cool temperatures and high (deep) pressures, scientists have observed smaller "burps" due to tectonic events. Studies suggest the huge release of natural gas[6] could be a major climatological trigger, methane itself being a greenhouse gas many times more powerful than carbon dioxide. However, anoxia was also rife during the Hirnantian (late Ordovician) ice age.


Unfortunately I stopped following the debate so long ago... Unsure what kind of information people are sharing these days.

Anyways... Climate Change is definitively a Political Argument.

Pollution, natural resources, and toxic waste, that's scientific and the whole global warming debate detracts from what really matters. Human health and living conditions.


----------

