There’s a good reason we’re moderating climate change deniers: uninformed comments undermine expertise
The Conversation is moderating comments from climate change deniers. Editor Misha Ketchell explains why.
A few days ago I posted here to say we are going to be more rigorous about moderating comments of climate science deniers. Over the past few days there has been an incredible response, both supportive and hostile. On social media, and in private communication, hundreds of people applauded our approach and expressed their alarm at the media’s failure to convey the relatively settled scientific consensus.
On the other side, a handful of people have made contact to say they will no longer read The Conversation. A few loud media voices have claimed our approach is totalitarian. In an interview with Senator Eric Abetz on Sky News Chris Kenny did what bullies often do – he tried to intimidate and cause maximum damage by asking the Senator to ensure The Conversation never again receives government funding.
Newspaper editors once sorted through letters to decide which would be published in their newspaper. Our comments moderation policy is no different.
There is misinformation, vested interests and hysteria on both sides of the fence around this one. To say (or put yourself into a situation of where you’re strongly insinuating) you’re going to be silencing just one side of the debate here is about as logical as the fascist campaign that JCU has been running against Mr Peter Ridd. Rise above it.
Your first sentence is true, but lacks proportion. When 99% of scientists agree something, that’s clearly not a 50/50 proposition.
“Is too much red meat unhealthy?” is a question where the jury is still out. The argument that climate change is real, and human-caused, is practically unanimously supported by those with expertise.
For reasons why the argument might *seem* less settled, check this out: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/
Whilst I am not a skeptic, I do agree it’s important to keep dialogue open. There’s been many times in history where 99% of scientists have thought something to be fact, only to be course corrected by new findings. By stiffing this commentary you not only force people into factional groups (who come out of the woodwork when people like Trump ‘finally’ proclaim their beliefs in the open) but you also limit the potential to genuinely solve the issue.
These opinions may be wrong, but hiding them is more so.
Science is never settled. Once it’s “settled” it’s no longer science but propaganda.
I debate my wife every morning until she cries because if I believe gravity is comprehendable then the globalists win.
Yes, we should ensure that any articles that refer to the earth as a globe should include the other side of the debate and interview scientists who say there is doubt about the evidence of the earth’s shape. Science is never settled and the ‘round earth’ theory is propaganda.
Keep working on developing some skill in logic and critical thinking ,it will come. But clearly not over night.
‘People are less inclined to believe experts when their views are presented alongside hostile opinions.’ By ‘hostile opinions’ you mean any opinion that doesn’t fit your narrative.
But of course, you pronounce the science to be settled, so no need to give those pesky ‘climate deniers’ an opportunity to evoke their ‘hostile’ opinions into the discussion.
Censorship is censorship. Just call it what it is.
Climate deniers have enjoyed over 50 years to express their ‘opinions’. Backed by billions of corporate money. Across the world’s biggest media platforms. They have ignored, distorted and maligned real evidence that carbon dioxide is destroying our planet. There are people who still believe smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer. They are people who still believe the world is flat. There are people who believe vaccines cause autism. It’s high time we called those people, including climate deniers, what they are: idiots. It’s high time we stopped presenting their opinions as ‘the other side of the story’, and told the truth: amongst scientists, there is no debate on the reality. Climate change is here, and it is catastrophic. The human race can no longer afford to walk at the pace of our slowest members. We aren’t looking to censor you, but we are certainly hoping to ignore you so move forward with the gargantuan task of fixing the problem. Well done The Conversation.
Sorry, I couldn’t read past ‘carbon dioxide is destroying the planet.’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/25/worrying-rise-in-global-co2-forecast-for-2019
‘At The Conversation we believe that now is the time to exercise more care around the quality of information we present in the comments stream. And this means less emotive argument that distorts the evidence.’
Have you provided any in your op piece?
Most people criticizing climate change AREN’T deniers, we are not denying that climate change is a thing, we agree with scientists that this is happening. However we don’t place it as the highest on our priority lists and don’t use it as a weapon to verbally bludgeon other people into conforming.
I was speaking about this with some mates, rather than protesting – the people-power behind the protest could have donated $10 each to a campaign pushing ‘meat free Mondays’ as a campaign, which would have provided a benefit for climate change and potentially people over-all, however it isn’t as socially hot as shouting at people to change – as long as it isn’t at the cost of your convenience.
The way I read the article, your points would be most acceptable in The Conversation comments section.
Given the almost hysterical hatred shown towards climate change action on a recent post – Mumbrella could sure do with something similar.
There seems to be an irrational argument that 3% of the science should get 50% of the conversation. While this is stupid, we all see that the 3% already gets way way more than 50% in much of the media.
Rob, excellent point.
Given that climate change deniers make up just 3%, the fair and balanced approach is to give them 3% say in any article.
So 3 words in a 100 words piece, 30 words in a 1,000 words piece, etc.
That would be the accurate thing to do, the right thing to do.
It’s pretty clear that the author is not saying that if someone turned up with a factually based, peer-reviewed case against the current ‘settled’ science that they wouldn’t publish (either article or comment).
This isn’t an op-ed site. The tldr; of this comments policy is that people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Entirely reasonable given they are an academic and research-based publication.
The deniers can always take their ‘hostile opinions’ to the warm embrace of the Murdoch stable.
It is entirely reasonable to demand a certain level of quality in responses and comments. Just spouting propoganda and lies is not an acceptable comeback to peer reviewed science.
Your point rests on the presupposition that you are right. All this is reminiscent of Galileo’s plight. Heliocentrism was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in the early 1600’s which concluded that heliocentrism was “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture”
History repeating itself…..
Bless you Gareth for an historical perspective.
As John Stow wrote in his 1580 book ‘The Annals of England’, reading history ‘makes you wise.’
This isn’t a government censoring critics or people with differing opinions. This is an academic website with the purpose of sharing research, expert opinion and insight. They can set whatever moderation they like that aligns to their purpose and audience, and if that means not publishing baseless opinion that detracts from serious debate, so be it.
If you believe the earth is flat, vaccines cause autism, the world is run by giant alien lizards or that the scientific community is wrong about climate change, no one is going to stop you from having free speech. You can get a soap box and shout it to the world – or set up your own website, post on social media or comment elsewhere.The Conversation is not stopping you from having an opinion – just not on their site.