EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Taking on the Skeptics
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23721
Page 1 of 1

Author:  warmair [ Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Taking on the Skeptics

Anyone interested in a site where the Anti skeptics could do with a hand ?

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/forums/20/1/Climate_and_Climate_Change

I use the same screen name over there. I wonder if I am wasting my time? I do get some benefit from it myself, as I look up these claims and as a result I usually learn something but is the damage caused by giving these guys an platform to spout their wild claims just not worth it.
I wonder what the views of others on this site are ?

Update A week later I was banned from the Weatherzone forum the reasons given was they objected to my posting above and also accused me of trying to disrupt their forum.

Author:  Ann Vole [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

I have different reasons for wanting to go with a "green" lifestyle which results in a very low carbon footprint. Because my reasons have nothing to do with carbon or the weather, I find the whole carbon thing a non-issue. I have tangled with a few skeptics and find they are more set in their thinking then Christians and Atheists... I will never have an impact on them no matter what I say on the topic. I just point to Hitler and say "that can happen here quickly... become an effective anarchist and go off the grid and grow your own food."

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

Well, warmair, that is an Aussie site. I think stubborn Aussies are the most stubborn there are. With implementation time to go to the necessary emissions reductions to maybe stop from crossing the tipping points of tundra methane self release, open ocean self warming, and subsequent ocean methane hydrates self release until "turnover", and the continued general denial/stupidity/selfishness----fighting them is a fruitless endeavor. Those of us with a conscience will keep fighting denialists until the end. :x :mrgreen:

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

I believe the problem is not in the membership but the adminstration.

Quote:
'Wayne Stollings',

This is a notification of your ban from the Weatherzone Forums. The ban will be implemented shortly. We note you have been asked on another forum to 'take on the sceptics'. There is no desire to contribute positively to the forum environment, instead your aim is to disrupt discussion on this forum.

Author:  warmair [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

I got banned as I expected I would
It just indicates that the truth is not popular
stupidity knows no bounds.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

It appears they may be a denialist organization given the business contacts....

http://business.weatherzone.com.au/

Author:  Ann Vole [ Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

many years ago I was quite involved with several forums for pet owners who were specifically interested in unusual species. One guy spent several million dollars to buy out all the servers and domains of those forums then link them to this person's new PetSmart chain of stores with a forum. Then each of the forums were systematically destroyed. This particular person then proceeded to advocate tight laws against exotic pets. The oil lobby has more money and purpose then that one guy's beef with exotic pets.

Author:  warmair [ Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

I have been doing a bit of digging about the weatherzone site
I an satisfied that it is a genuine business whose aim is to make money from providing weather services to television stations, other commercial organisations, recreational marine and aviation users.

It was started by a guy called Mark Hardy who is the company director he appears to be a qualified meteorologist. I am unable to determine whether he is what I would call a climate sceptic but on balance I suspect not. The company is owned by the fairfax group who are best know for the Age newspaper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age. The paper in the past gave a balanced view of climate issues but is currently struggling and is being eyed off by some of our wealthiest Australians. One suspects with the hope of providing a positive spin on their activates.

My conclusion is that the forum on which myself and Wayne got banned has been taken over by skeptics who have managed to become the moderators of the site. There is clear evidence of bias towards those who dispute the some of unsubstantiated claims made by those opposed to the idea that man made emissions are damaging the climate.

I have come to the conclusion that there are basically three types of sites re climate change which should be dealt with in different ways depending on their mode of operation.

The first and best are those which genuinely try to clarify the science behind climate change. On these sites one can have rational discussion on the subject and learn something regardless of the views of the individual posters. For interest it helps if there are some posters who question the prevailing view. If all the posters accept the same view of the world the thing becomes a bit boring.

The second type is set up by those people who for what ever reason are convinced that climate change is not a problem. It is often difficult to determine whether the people are just misguided or have some hidden agenda. Here it is sometimes possible shed a bit of light around the site.

The third type are those that have only one interest, that is to discredit all climate science for either ideological or financial reasons. Hopefully if these sites are totally ignored then all interest in them will disappear.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

Given that I directed my question concerning the pending ban based on an assumed intent to the Administrator and received no reply, I feel safe in my assumption of the site intent. The impact on the business by forum administration is something which the company must monitor at all times. The focus on anti-science positions must indicate a similar leaning by the ownership. Not a good position for them, IMO.

Author:  Iowanic [ Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

I've taken just a brief peek in at the site: methinx it's a 'one-view-and-one-view-only' kinda place. I doubt I'd last any longer there then Wayne or warmair.

Note: Didn't we used to have someone with the tag 'snafu' posting that the environment site? And that they got banned there?
There's no telling it's the same person, of course but I think it a remarkable coincidence....

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

The screen name sounded familiar to me too. I was sort of amused that the "discussions of science" where people were called liars, etc were acceptable, but my posts were not. I wanted to ask what is was about my posts that was not a discussion about the science or the perception thereof, but did not get to do so.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

warmair wrote:
My conclusion is that the forum on which myself and Wayne got banned has been taken over by skeptics who have managed to become the moderators of the site.

It reminds me of TES (where I got banned twice!), when they let denialist snowlover moderate.
"FABIAN ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

We have two denier loons who have only one agenda which is to destroy this forum and one of those loons you appointed as moderator.

It is quite clear there agenda is to do anything to stop proper discussion on AGW including wherever possible to create as much confusion and trouble as possible.

Even on WUWT that hold a standard that all discussions must be standard scientifically based it's that simple.

Quote Originally Posted by ANTHONY WATTS
I have been badgered repeatedly to carry “Slayer” articles on WUWT, and with the exception of one cartoon by Josh, I have refused to do so since I and science view the work (and its derivatives) as pointless and fatally flawed.
Now we have reached the situation where we have denier loon realizes his mate isn't going to pull him up for anything and essentially posting garbage after garbage that he openly admits is not standard scientific.

I have no problem discussing what science says about climate science but I draw the line at you being able to make up your own version of science. People coming here to learn and discuss AGW should not have to wade thru post after post that they are the dumber for having ever read.

Perhaps I should start posting that aliens are causing AGW as that apparently will be perfectly acceptable.

We have to have some norms some conventions that we adhere too every climate forum has too because the area seems to attract the loon factor. (from 5-19-12 post by uglybb)"
Found at another site, a bit of history. mgo

Author:  Snowy123 [ Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

It's a good thing that you are trying to interact with the other side Warmair. That's a real shame, that the people there are no better than the advocates who try and suppress debate.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

Snowy123 wrote:
It's a good thing that you are trying to interact with the other side Warmair. That's a real shame, that the people there are no better than the advocates who try and suppress debate.


I agree on both counts.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Taking on the Skeptics

The time for debate was replaced by the time for real effective action in 1992. All this time wasted has made it nearly impossible to prevent thermageddon (AETM ELE 3000AD). :evil: :cry: :evil: :cry: #-o [-X =; :mrgreen:
"Permafrost is one of the keys to the planet's future because it contains large stores of frozen organic matter that, if thawed and released into the atmosphere, would amplify current global warming and propel us to a warmer world," said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner in a statement.

At the climate talks in Doha, Qatar, negotiations over Kyoto started on Tuesday. Many rich countries such as Japan, Russia and Canada have refused to endorse the extension, and talks are expected to be heated. The United States was the lone industrialized country not to join the original pact because it did not include other big greenhouse gas emitters like China.

In its current form, a pact that once incorporated all industrialized countries except the United States would now only include the European Union, Australia and several smaller countries which together account for less than 15 percent of global emissions.

"We want to send a very clear message. We will not accept a second commitment period that is not worth the paper that it's written on," Asad Rehman of the Climate Justice Now! network told delegates. "We will not collude in a lie if that locks us into eight years of inaction and that condemns people and planet to a climate catastrophe."

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/