Should CC deniers be given space to air their views?

[kenneal - lagger]

This article points out that only a very small number of Climate Change deniers are causing the heated arguments on some discussion boards. Removing them enables a very good discussion of the science to take place.

[biffvernon]

Yep, I'd treat them in the same way as holocaust deniers and promoters of racial hatred. It really isn't anything to do with free speech.

[Little John]

This article points out that only a very small number of Climate Change deniers are causing the heated arguments on some discussion boards. Removing them enables a very good discussion of the science to take place.

They should be given air space as only a proportion of the population their views represent and in conjunction with the degree of falsifiability of their argument. That is to say, even if their argument is popular, if it is completely inaccessible to verification either empirically or logically, then it has little place in a debate where verification is a prerequisite for reasoned debate (such as one involving climate science). What they should should not be given is equal air space on the back of some misplaced BBC-esque concept of "impartiality". Impartiality is not absolute, it is relative.

Regarding below:

Yep, I'd treat them in the same way as holocaust deniers and promoters of racial hatred. It really isn't anything to do with free speech.

This gets me twitchy. The reason being that although it's pretty easy for me to not get too upset if I see exponents of the above arguments having difficulty in getting air space in any debate,, it simultaneously bothers me that the reason for the exclusion implied in your posts is that such exclusion is morally self evident. In other words, that your morality dictates the freedom of expression of others. I've got news for you, it doesn't and it shouldn't.

[biffvernon]

No, it's not about morals so much as being able to have a sensible discussion. You can't have a sensible discussion about electrical engineering on a social internet forum if someone keeps butting in denying the existence of man-generated electricity and claiming that all electrical phenomena are magic induced by the flying spaghetti monster. After a couple of polite hints you ban him.

[kenneal - lagger]

.......... if someone keeps butting in denying the existence of man-generated electricity and claiming that all electrical phenomena are magic induced by the flying spaghetti monster. ..........

[UndercoverElephant]

I see it as very similar to the situation with creationism. Creationists, most of them at least, know they can never win the argument against darwinism, even if they don't accept that the reason they can't win is that they're wrong. Instead of trying to win, they therefore employ a strategy of trying to muddy the waters and cause enough general confusion so that at least the other creationists are free to go on believing they are right, even if they fail utterly in convincing any darwinists of their idiotic beliefs.

How does one deal with creationists on a forum dedicated to science or rationalism? I don't think banning them is a good strategy, because they can then claim they are being silenced because they are a threat, but you can make sure that discussions questioning evolution from a creationist perspective are relegated to a sub-forum of their own, so the tactic of muddying the waters doesn't work. They just end up muddying their own little side-pool instead. And I suggest we do the same here with CC denial. Have a sub-section devoted to it, split off any posts of that nature into the sub-forum, and eventually the deniers will learn that it is a waste of their time trying to disrupt threads with their idiotic beliefs, and will stop doing it.

[snow hope]

Yep, I'd treat them in the same way as holocaust deniers and promoters of racial hatred. It really isn't anything to do with free speech.

Quite pathetic Biff.

Thank goodness you have no part to play in what is or is not free speech

[woodburner]

Yep, I'd treat them in the same way as holocaust deniers and promoters of racial hatred. It really isn't anything to do with free speech.

A pity bigotry has to rear it's head. Maybe it's insecurity.

[clv101]

Yep, I'd treat them in the same way as holocaust deniers and promoters of racial hatred. It really isn't anything to do with free speech.

Quite pathetic Biff.

Thank goodness you have no part to play in what is or is not free speech

I can see this point. We, rightly in my opinion, have laws against publishing holocaust deniers and promoters of racial hatred.

We don't have laws against publishing creationism.

The difference, I presume is to do with impact. The former have serious consequences, the latter, despite being bonkers doesn't really have any serious consequences.

The question about publishing climate change denial is one about impact, if there's no significant impact, let them print their bonkers. On the other hand, if it does have real impact - like publishing racial hatred does - then it's reasonable consider treating it in the same way as we already treat other damaging things.

I think the article Ken linked to makes some good points.

[Little John]

Yep, I'd treat them in the same way as holocaust deniers and promoters of racial hatred. It really isn't anything to do with free speech.

Quite pathetic Biff.

Thank goodness you have no part to play in what is or is not free speech

I can see this point. We, rightly in my opinion, have laws against publishing holocaust deniers and promoters of racial hatred.

We don't have laws against publishing creationism.

The difference, I presume is to do with impact. The former have serious consequences, the latter, despite being bonkers doesn't really have any serious consequences.

The question about publishing climate change denial is one about impact, if there's no significant impact, let them print their bonkers. On the other hand, if it does have real impact - like publishing racial hatred does - then it's reasonable consider treating it in the same way as we already treat other damaging things.

I think the article Ken linked to makes some good points.

No, the "impact" of something is no reason, in itself ,to restrict public freedom of expression on a given topic. The falsifiability in conjunction with how interested the public are at large with a topic is the only legitimate reason for restricting freedom of expression on a public forum given the limited resources of that forum.

What you are basically trying to argue there is that if something you do not agree with is being expressed in a completely intellectual manner, then you have no problem, with it's expression. However, if it is being expressed effectively, then you would like it banned. Who are you to decide which arguments are valid and, on that basis, who does and does not get heard?

[clv101]

What you are basically trying to argue there is that if something you do not agree with is being expressed in a completely intellectual manner, then you have no problem, with it's expression. However, if it is being expressed effectively, then you would like it banned. Who are you to decide which arguments are valid and, on that basis, who does and does not get heard?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying if publishing something has a significant negative impact there's argument to ban it. If it has no significant negative impact folk can say whatever they want.

I'm specifically not saying anything about expressing things in an intellectual manner or any other, nor am I saying anything about arguments I agree with or suggesting I'm the one to decide what arguments are valid or not! Not sure how you inferred that from what I wrote.

[woodburner]

That's easy, on PS we can infer anything from nothing.

[biffvernon]

.......... if someone keeps butting in denying the existence of man-generated electricity and claiming that all electrical phenomena are magic induced by the flying spaghetti monster. ..........

Thanks to Ken for quoting the significant contextual part of what I wrote. Shame on those who selectively quoted to draw false inferences.

If a climate denier wants to post stuff on some obscure corner of cyberspace where he can be ignored (and have you noticed, it almost always is a he, except for Sarah Palin) then let's just shrug and say whatever. I was writing about the denier trolls who try to mess up rational discussion on the internet. I don't have any time for them once I'm convinced they are not just innocently ignorant

But when it comes to the likes of Nigel Lawson, whose influence might contribute to the end of human civilisation, then the crime is at least as bad and maybe far worse, than incitement to racial hatred.

Of course the AGW deniers round here will now attack. Never mind, I have a stout tin hat.

[Little John]

What you are basically trying to argue there is that if something you do not agree with is being expressed in a completely intellectual manner, then you have no problem, with it's expression. However, if it is being expressed effectively, then you would like it banned. Who are you to decide which arguments are valid and, on that basis, who does and does not get heard?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying if publishing something has a significant negative impact there's argument to ban it. If it has no significant negative impact folk can say whatever they want.

I'm specifically not saying anything about expressing things in an intellectual manner or any other, nor am I saying anything about arguments I agree with or suggesting I'm the one to decide what arguments are valid or not! Not sure how you inferred that from what I wrote.

I misspelled "intellectual". I meant to say "ineffectual".

In other words:

"....What you are basically trying to argue there is that if something you do not agree with is being expressed in a completely ineffectual manner, then you have no problem, with it's expression. However, if it is being expressed effectively, then you would like it banned. Who are you to decide which arguments are valid and, on that basis, who does and does not get heard?...."

And so my point stands. Specifically in relation to your re-assertion:

I'm saying if publishing something has a significant negative impact there's argument to ban it. If it has no significant negative impact folk can say whatever they want.

You may wish to re-address it given my earlier spelling mistake

[clv101]

What you are basically trying to argue there is that if something you do not agree with is being expressed in a completely intellectual manner, then you have no problem, with it's expression. However, if it is being expressed effectively, then you would like it banned. Who are you to decide which arguments are valid and, on that basis, who does and does not get heard?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying if publishing something has a significant negative impact there's argument to ban it. If it has no significant negative impact folk can say whatever they want.

I'm specifically not saying anything about expressing things in an intellectual manner or any other, nor am I saying anything about arguments I agree with or suggesting I'm the one to decide what arguments are valid or not! Not sure how you inferred that from what I wrote.

I misspelled "intellectual". I meant to say "ineffectual".

In other words:

"....What you are basically trying to argue there is that if something you do not agree with is being expressed in a completely ineffectual manner, then you have no problem, with it's expression. However, if it is being expressed effectively, then you would like it banned. Who are you to decide which arguments are valid and, on that basis, who does and does not get heard?...."

And so my point stands. Specifically in relation to your re-assertion:

I'm saying if publishing something has a significant negative impact there's argument to ban it. If it has no significant negative impact folk can say whatever they want.

You may wish to re-address it given my earlier spelling mistake

That's a little clearer now.

However, let's be clear, what I'm saying as nothing to to do with whether or no I agree with it. I'm talking about whether what's being published has significant negative impact. If it does then there's argument to ban it.