The Conversation has signed up to something called Covering Climate Now – a special week of climate change coverage, supported by more than 170 media outlets who are disturbed by the fact that no-one in the media is talking about climate change.
They’ve started off with a bang today with this article by
digital editor Molly Glassey editor Misha Ketchell titled: “Climate Change Deniers are Dangerous: they don’t Deserve a Place on our Site.”
At The Conversation we’ve recently vowed to improve our climate change coverage, and part of that means moderating comments with a similar degree of rigour.
Once upon a time, we might have viewed climate sceptics as merely frustrating. We relied on other commenters and authors to rebut skeptics 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 we’re 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.
As a reader, author or commenter, we need your help. If you see something that is misinformation, please don’t engage, simply report it. Do this by clicking the report button below a comment.
I wonder what, exactly, will get you banned? A quote by Richard Feynman? Reference to a peer reviewed article suggesting lower end sensitivity to CO2? Citing the University of Alabama’s satellite-based temperature record? Maybe someone would like to test it out.
Yesterday the Conversation published “A Climate Change Curriculum to Empower the Climate Strike Generation:”
It’s too late to protect them from it, so how do teachers tell children about climate change without scaring them?… Primary school teachers have an ethical responsibility to bring climate change into their classrooms and they’re well placed for the task.
Actually, the article wasn’t too bad. It merely suggested things like books about animals and nature walks for primary school children, suggestions so banal you wondered why the author, Ria Dunkley, bothered making them.
Ria is a lecturer in Geography, Environment and Sustainability at the University of Glasgow. She receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council; the British Council; the Economic and Social Research Council & the European Commission.
Wow. Grants from four different government bodies. At Dominic Cummings’ blog some bloke who invented the internet was saying he wouldn’t get a research grant in today’s funding environment, so I was wondering what Ria has that the scientists who changed the world don’t have.
A lot of articles at Google Scholar, for a start:
But Ria’s fascination with death and atrocity is all in the past. She’s into eco-pedagogy now:
–Becoming a (green) identity entrepreneur: Learning to negotiate situated identities to nurture community environmental practice
I checked if she’d really left her early morbid interests behind by clicking on “since 2019” and sure enough, of the nine articles she’s published so far this year, not one mentions death camps war graves or thanatourism. Ria has turned a corner in her life.
Or has she? She says it’s too late to protect children from climate change, so she presumably agrees with Tim Flannery when he says, in another article published by the Conversation yesterday entitled “The Gloves are Off: Predatory Climate Deniers are a Threat to Our Children”:
.. That future Earth may have enough resources to support far fewer people than the 7.6 billion it supports today… Mass deaths are predicted to result from, among other causes, disease outbreaks, air pollution, malnutrition and starvation, heatwaves, and suicide. My children, and those of many prominent polluters and climate denialists, will probably live to be part of that grim winnowing…
Clever that – getting “climate deniers,” “predatory” and “children” all in the same headline. Haven’t I seen stuff like that somewhere before – dark hints of outgroups who ritually sacrifice babies?
Remind me to ask an expert in thanotourism.