“The Conversation” gives up conversing, admits defeat on climate, bans all skeptical scientists from commenting!

“The Conversation” gives up conversing, admits defeat on climate, bans all skeptical scientists from commenting! By Joanne Nova.

What kind of conversation only has one side? Paid propaganda.

“The Conversation” is a site funded by your taxpayer dollars, in countries where 50 – 60% of the entire population don’t agree with the IPCC’s dominant mantra. Yet no matter how qualified you are, no matter how good your argument, your evidence and your data, you, we, half the population, is now banned.

The editor Misha Ketchell has officially blocked unbelievers, and thus effectively admitted that they can’t reply to skeptics, and that skeptics are posing too many questions they can’t answer. They’ve been deleting skeptical comments for years, so it’s good that they finally have the honesty to admit it.

The irony of a site called “The Conversation” which won’t allow a conversation is perfect Owellian Newspeak. Let’s just call it The Conversion from now on — the mission is to help converts keep the faith.

Yesterday they published hatemail from Tim Flannery calling scientists who disagreed, deniers who are “predatory threats” to his own children. Today they’re banning half the population.

The Conversation: Climate change deniers are dangerous – they don’t deserve a place on our site. By Misha Ketchell.

Once upon a time, we might have viewed climate sceptics as merely frustrating. We relied on other commenters and authors to rebut sceptics and deniers, which often lead to endless back and forth.

But it’s 2019, and now we know better. Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse.

That’s why the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.

We believe conversations are integral to sharing knowledge, but those who are fixated on dodgy ideas in the face of decades of peer-reviewed science are nothing but dangerous.

It is counter productive to present the evidence and then immediately undermine it by giving space to trolls. The hopeless debates between those with evidence and those who fabricate simply stalls action.

Joanne:

If only they had evidence they wouldn’t need to ban people!

Terrified! Lord save my eyes from blasphemy…

So a “stalled public discourse” will be able to move forward by gagging half the population? What’s your definition of “stalled”? …

The reason the debate is stalled is because the only outcome Ketchell will accept is belief in fairy weather control. Since it’s a joke, maintained by namecalling “denier” and indignant fautrage, manipulated data and unvalidated models known to fail, this debate will only unstall when the debate is hammered out through … conversation, which obviously isn’t going to happen at The Conversation.

One half of the population are wrong on this topic, and one half are running chicken from debate. Join the dots. …

[Note] the fake sciencey motherhood statements. Every hypocrite, pocket-dictator and cult-ruler uses some version of “it’s better for you if I protect you from hearing things I deem unworthy”…

So who’s a troll then? Roy Spencer? Ph.D. in meteorology, NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, supported by NASA, NOAA, and DOE?

Half the population of Australia, the UK, USA, NZ and Canada are trolls according to surveys and most national elections.

What would Roy Spencer know about climate change?

Obviously he doesn’t have Misha’s scientific qualifications which apparently amount to watching twenty years of The ABC:

Misha Ketchell, Editor & Executive Director of the Conversation

“Misha has been a journalist for more than 20 years. In previous roles he was a reporter at The Age, founding editor of The Big Issue Australia and editor of Crikey, The Reader and The Melbourne Weekly. He also spent several years at the ABC where he was a TV producer on Media Watch and The 7:30 Report and an editor on The Drum.”

Misha is politically correct. Notice that he has a government funded position, paid for out of taxpayer funds taken by threat of force, and has the politically correct view on climate. The facts, however, are not kind to his view. You may not comment on his website unless you agree with his view.

Joanne is funded by people willingly giving their own money to her. There is a moral difference. The facts are kind to her view. But she is politically incorrect and so thoroughly black-banned by the ruling bureaucracy and corporates in Australia. Anyone may express any view on climate on her website, as long as they are polite.