Would you support a DU ban on climate change denialist posts?

[kristopher]

The evidence is incontrovertable - climate change is real, of human origin, and an incredibly urgent problem that must be dealt with.

The fossil fuel interests have worked mightily since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to create a network of think tank produced propaganda that is designed to do one thing and one thing only - stop action on climate change that will hurt business for fossil fuels interests.

All the denial debate is based on phony arguments that have no place at the table with science - they are the spear-point of a political campaign targeting scientific illiterates and masquerading as a debate over science.

I believe there should be no tolerance for this line of "questioning" at DU.

Questions about how we address the problem are routinely derailed as this strategy of the right is successfully employed.

We NEED to have a discussion about energy policy that isn't constantly being deflected by manufactured crisis such as stolen, inconsequential emails being trumpeted as one more bogus "proof" that the left is out to "steal the freedom" of every dipshit right wingnut and turn American into the "socialist" country we've apparently always wanted.

I would prefer an outright ban with a pizza for anyone violating it more than twice. But, at the very least, I'd suggest a "special thread" where this tripe can be consigned to oblivion.

It is a matter of freedom of speech - the freedom to conduct meaningful discussion without disruption by actors with nefarious intent.

[Onceuponalife]

1. No, I wouldn't be in favor of censoring ideas.

Besides I love arguing.

[kristopher]

3. No ideas would be censored - it is manufactured tripe.

It is well documented campaign of disinformation. Nothing more.

[timeforpeace]

92. Didn't Orwell predict this OP?

[parasim]

2. Ban? Why ban? Discuss!

I mean, geez!

[LoZoccolo]

4. DU already has pages and pages of rules which have been dipped in ass and fail sauce.

Seriously, it's a magnanimous joke and confirms the worst stereotypes of liberals. People need to learn how to take responsibility for their disagreement with certain ideas instead of running to mommy. If a person cannot control themselves and pisses themselves every time they see climate change denial bullshit, or any other bullshit, they should stay off of DU.

[natrat]

44. problem is, after a while it becomes bullshit underground

so sifting through mostly bullshit may be an intellectual challenge it is more a waste of time

[closeupready]

54. Or employ the ignore user function.

n/t

[Swamp Rat]

5. NO! I need the entertainment!

and its FREE! :D

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. No..... I enjoy the idiots and the debunking

Nice new toon.... Swampy

[Johonny]

48. +1

[AllentownJake]

7. Nope

The strength of the evidence is enough of a response, if they are linking worldnetdaily to bolster their claim...well there are rules about that.

[Kaleva]

8. No

[snot]

9. Why not relegate them to their own, "special" basement,

like DU did with the 9-11 conspiracy theorists? Surely the latter's tinfoil's no thicker.

[Turborama]

47. I agree

Climate Change denialism is definitely Conspiracy Theory material which deserves its own dungeon, or at the very least sent to the September 11 forum where all the other mind numbing hogwash ends up. Think about it, Glenn BecKKK and Alex Jones are two of the most vocal denialists out there, need I say more?

[burning rain]

10. The denialists are a treat, aren't they?

They can't wrap their heads around the simple fact of physics that carbon dioxide traps heat, and that humans have been vastly increasing carbon dioxide output. Come on, denialists! All you need is some very simple physics and the ability to follow a syllogism: carbon dioxide traps heat... humans generate lots more carbon dioxide... lots more heat if we keep it up!

[Hekate]

11. Actually, yes I would. It's RWnut propaganda, simple and evil, & I don't think we need...

... to have that false and lying "debate." It's not a debate, it's false equivalency, the way "Some people say Hitler killed 6 million Jews, and some people say it was only a hundred thousand." It's bullshit.

Hekate

[MH1]

60. Thank you, well said.

[Goldstein1984]

12. No...

It wouldn't be very democratic or liberal.

I learn a lot when someone tosses an argument out that I haven't heard before and I have to go do research.

[aikoaiko]

13. I think it is more important that we demonstrate how to handle denialists than ban those posts.

Even if some of those posts are from disruptors.

[omega minimo]

14. Would you support a ban on Racist and Misogynistic Bigot posts?

:thumbsup:

[kristopher]

36. That type of post is already deleted because of content.

[omega minimo]

55. Wrong.

[Odin2005]

73. You would be suprised what shit doesn't get deleted.

OM and I were getting infuriated by the sick posts of a few posters a few months ago, a lot of them being "rape victims were asking for it" posts.

[The Straight Story]

15. Only if I were a cult member and was afraid of other ideals (nt)

[name not needed]

16. No. At least now you can easily point out the idiots.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ichingcarpenter]

18. LOL! Case in point......"i believe global temperatures have gone down"

"in the last 4,5 years. how many models predicted that."


First work on your punctuation dude, and then your science, links and data
and we can talk.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. You can't cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend,

The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend but a warming trend.


Try again denier

[clear eye]

25. Yes. I see. Now I know to "ignore" this guy..

I'm pretty good w/ ignores. Whenever a few other DUers are getting hot and bothered and frustrated on a thread, I don't see the offending posts. Otherwise I can read the entire thread. So I guess I'm pretty accurate at picking disrupters.

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. He's dead Jim

[Raine]

30. He's already eating the granite

no need for ignore. :evilgrin:

[tavalon]

29. Believe all you want, freedomfunds

You're gonna die with all the rest of us. You'll probably still be spouting this garbage with your last unbelievable breath.

[cali]

31. links to evidence of that?

you believe doesn't cut it.

[Raine]

19. No, I disagree with that kind thought

how anyone can deny it I don't know but I'm not for banning it.

[Iggo]

20. Nope. Use 'Hide Thread' if you don't wanna see them.

[MH1]

61. Hide thread doesn't stop good threads from being hijacked.

That is by far the biggest problem. And if all the knowledgeable and honest people use 'ignore' on the trolls, then you have threads filled with bullshit, giving the impression that on this forum there is some disagreement over climate change. When among Democrats there really isn't. (Well out in the wild, climate change denial probably ranks among Democrats about with gay-hating and being anti-choice. It exists but not as an accepted liberal position.)

[cabluedem]

21. Only if we also ban the pro-firearms proliferation discussions . Get the Gun forum off DU . nt

[amborin]

22. i sympathize, but maybe we can convince someone to consider the

undeniable evidence and see the reality of it?

[MH1]

64. paid trolls cannot be 'convinced'

and whether they are the minority or majority of those the op is thinking of, I have no doubt there are at least one or two.

[amborin]

94. here

on DU, there is at least one denier troll

this individual seems to follow me around whenever i post something concerning global climate change...it's uncanny; the reply is so fast. must have some kind of software?

[proteus_lives]

23. No.

Censorship is never a good idea.

[tavalon]

27. No, I'm in favor of institutionalized mocking

It's almost as much fun as baiting trolls.

[SidDithers]

70. +1...nt

Sid

[earth mom]

32. Put the denial crap in it's own "climate change denial dungeon".

Hell, we aren't allowed to speak freely about how 911 was MIHOP or LIHOP. Great threads with great information about 911 are regularly stripped from GD and LBN and shown the September 11th dungeon.

Why should disinfo agents have free rein to spew their crap freely about global warming all over DU?! :grr:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. Tempting, but... no. There's WAY worse things to ban.

Creationists.

Anti-choicers. (Especially those of the begins-at-conception, rape-victims-should-carry-to-term variety)

Birthers.

Religious bigots in general.

Fans of Joe Arpaio. (The one rabid right-wing Republican it's OK to be a fan of, apparently)

Consistent defenders of police brutality. (You know, those who always jump in in favor of the LEO side no matter how egregious and obvious the offense is.)

People who bat 1.000 on right-wingness, no matter the topic.


With all of the above stinking up the place, global warming denial doesn't even tip the scales.

[kristopher]

39. Apples and oranges, no?

All of the things you've listed are either matters of opinion or, in the one exception from strict opinion (creationism) it is an annoying tip of the hat to the right of people to hold religious beliefs that are incongruent with reality.

Climate change and the consequent energy discussion are matters of objective scientific fact, not opinion.

None of the other topics have some of the largest industries on earth spending massive amounts of money on a network of think tanks and public relations companies that wage advertising and astroturf campaigns to disrupt and misinform the debate on energy.

There is no long term policy issue more important to the future of our nation and the planet than energy. What will happen over the next year is going to be pivotal, and the distribution and discussion of extremely valuable information is being *successfully* obstructed by the tactics of the deniers.

[MH1]

65. +1000

[Odin2005]

76. There are Arpaio fans here!?!

:wow:

[Spazito]

81. There is at least one, that's for sure...

This thread is quite 'enlightening', imo:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7231842#7234792

[cstanleytech]

34. Silencing dissenting views is just a bad idea in general.

If ya wanna really shut them up then come back at them and slap them down with facts and not opinions.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Then DU is a bad idea in general.

The rules say clearly that some opinions are inadmissible. Private premises -- owner's rules. Crying censorship is whiny crybabyism.

[Jim__]

35. No! The evidence is incontrovertible.

Any denial threads can be refuted with the evidence. No to censorship!

[bigwillq]

37. No (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. No, they are entertaining at a tragic level

and this is the magic of the US, even ideas that are just plain out wrong... well you know the drill.

Now pointing and laughing and having a little social ridicule, by all means if that is your choice.

[rucky]

41. Nope. The responses always teach me something new. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

42. Not sure. They do provide a service in bringing to our attention articles/sources that need to be..

quashed, avoided, debunked.

I rather like knowing where people are getting their "ideas".

And, members thus self-identify as possible trolls.

Additionally, if they aren't trolls, if they're just misinformed, then we have the opportunity to set the record straight.

Because, in the end, we don't need to change the minds of like-minded people, we need to bring more into the light.

:patriot:

[bemildred]

43. No, let them talk. nt

[NoGOPZone]

45. No, but I would support a DU ban on certain climate change denialists

whose names will not be mentioned.

[Unvanguard]

46. Yes. That kind of worthless nonsense should go. n/t

[wuushew]

49. All I know is the mods have been wimping out on the pizza delivery service

and forums like E/E suffer from it greatly.

[wuushew]

50. kick

:kick:

[NJmaverick]

51. Is there a need? I don't recall seeing all that many climate denier posts here on DU

[MH1]

62. spend much time in E/E?

[AngryAmish]

52. Get their names, find out where they live, and cruash them

[closeupready]

53. No, I would not support that.

Despite your claim (and I happen to agree with you), it is not clear to me that everyone believes global warming is happening as a result of human activities. That is, there are conceivably people who are merely misinformed. A discussion board such as DU is a great place to persuasively impart facts to such people. I see no good purpose served in instituting such a rule.

[therealbarack]

56. No

We can't censor thoughts like SOME people

[RobinA]

57. Right After a Ban

on any discussion of religion, supreme being(s), witch doctory or any other of that lacking-a-shred-of-evidence hocus pocus.

[viscrente]

58. No!

Is it Climate Change deniers or people against "cap and trade." I don't see many CC deniers on DU. I think that Cap and trade is a whole other discussion. I think there are better ways for us Americans to be clean and curb our emissions. Besides... The best way to correct which is undoubtedly a scientific issue to to combat it with science... Seems like the government should be funding all kinds of new science and power stations such as nuclear, clean coal...etc.

As far as banning individuals... That is against all principles of civilized debate. You should hang your head in shame for suggesting it. Combat the belief not the one who posts it.

[MH1]

59. If DU bans posters who repeatedly claim that "homosexuality is a sin, gays should be executed"

"abortion is murder", "George W Bush was right to invade Iraq, they attacked us on 9/11"

then absolutely DU should ban the posters who appear to be paid shills for the petroleum industry (even if one or two actually aren't) as they constantly throw distractions and bullshit into otherwise worthwhile discussions of what to do about climate change.

[dysfunctional press]

72. du DOESN'T ban posters who repeatedly say "abortion is murder"...

there are plenty of pro-life democrats too, you know.
(btw- for the record, i'm NOT one of them- but they ARE entitled to their opinion, and they ARE entitled to voice it.)

[MH1]

82. true, I shouldn't have included that. What of the other 2 examples I gave?

[dysfunctional press]

90. as far as posts that say 'gays should be executed'- well...that should be pretty obvious...

as far as posts that say that fuckface was 'right to attack iraq' after 9/11- i'm not aware of any posts/posters along those lines being regularly deleted...:shrug:

[L0oniX]

63. Gawd ...that's a stupid idea.

[varelse]

66. No, because we can see the evidence supporting science on this forum

The deniers have so many other forums where intelligent opposition to their views either isn't presented at all, or is drowned out or shouted down by their many knuckle-dragging RW fans. It's nice to see the defenders of science win here - over and over again. I think it is beneficial for us to see and refute the arguments which prevent Americans from acting in the best interests of their own children, and people all over the world.

[TexasObserver]

67. No, and I find the term "deniers" repugnant to a free exchange of ideas.

[Confusious]

68. Lets burn books too!

Keep ideas or opinions we don't want from being heard!

Yay! for freedom of speech! As long as it's the speech you want to hear.

[SidDithers]

69. No, but ridicule is an entirely acceptable reply to them...nt

Sid

[dysfunctional press]

71. absolutely not. It is a matter of freedom of speech.

get a fucking clue. :eyes:

[Odin2005]

77. This is a privatly-owned site.

The 1st Amendment does not apply.

[dysfunctional press]

78. and neither kristopher or you own it, either.

:hi:

[Odin2005]

74. Yes. And this is a privately-owned site, so the 1st Amendment doesn't apply.

[xultar]

75. Buhwawawawawa!

[nyc 4 Biden]

79. No, it's a useful way to identify trolls. n/t

[Laelth]

80. No. I usually favor more speech rather than less, even if it's stupid speech. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Zavulon]

83. No. I support letting the mods and admins making calls on a case-by-case basis.

I don't want to see ANY topic or stance banned by rule, except for obvious calls such as blatant support for Republican candidates.

[AngryOldDem]

84. Nope, I can't support censorhship. Sorry.

Arguments should live or die on their own merits, and not be ignored altogether because some may disagree.

[Individualist]

91. +1

[Orsino]

85. Well, if the Democratic Party took climate change seriously, I would.

Since the party shows no particular urgency in dealing with the issue, however, denialist posts wouldn't seem to violate the spirit or letter of the board rules.

[snooper2]

86. That would be like a ban on posts talking about CGI planes

Now what we do for fun/idle time if those folks were not allowed to vent :rofl:

[BennyD]

87. Censorship is for those who fear. n/t

[kestrel91316]

88. Yes. The denialists are paid trolls.

[slackmaster]

89. This is the dumbest idea I have seen all day

The term "climate change denialist" is anything but clear. It potentially covers a broad spectrum from people who say the climate is on a cooling trend, to those who say that greenhouse gases released by human activity account for only a small fraction of the observed warming, to people who don't buy into the idea that runaway greenhouse warming will lead to the extinction of the human species if we don't take decisive action right now.

The real truth is likely somewhere on that continuum.

[WI_DEM]

93. No, I don't believe in banning free speech even if I don't agree with it.