Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
That's a sad state of affairs, it seems that if you ask inconvenient questions or raise view points that they don't subscribe to, they'd rather pull the plug than engage in healthy debate.
SpeedMattersNot said:
Do their normal users catch onto innocent members being banned?
Good question, you would think they'd notice the amount of moderated/deleted posts at least. deeps said:
Good question, you would think they'd notice the amount of moderated/deleted posts at least.
You are aware of how those who believe in AGW act aren't you? You are aware that some have mooted it be a criminal act to deny warming? You are aware that the BBC has stated that there is little need to allow the opposition view to be discussed?Guam said:
Cant speak for others but I suspect its likely they dont like contrarian views. <they are not alone in that>
That's what the score is here, no more and no less.As we saw in Climategate, The Team worked on suppressing research that could do damage to The Cause, we also saw FakeClimate as a mouthpiece for warmist propaganda where site managers would delay or delete contrarian views as a matter of policy. It's normal behaviour for these types.
The Guardian only airs one viewpoint; their idea of the one and only correct one. Any dissent gets you banned.
It is only by rigidly enforcing conformity to the consensus and refusing to engage in any debate, that the big lie can stay safely hidden.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/why-ha...
Pointman
It is only by rigidly enforcing conformity to the consensus and refusing to engage in any debate, that the big lie can stay safely hidden.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/why-ha...
Pointman
LongQ said:
Mine too .... varies on a daily basis that is.
There certainly have been times in past years when the vanguard "warmist" sites coralled their readership into attempts to swamp opinion related 'polls'. Unless there was something nefarious (or seemingly nefarious) going on with the poll in question I don't recall many attempts that worked. However I would not claim to be aware of all of them or even a small proportion.
I think after a while they realised they were likely to be outvoted on anything a "non-warmist" site picked up on and applied the same sort of voting tactics. It mattered not whether votes were recorded and only single votes allowed (somehow) or repeat votes per day were acceptable to the poll. The efforts usually seemed to be outnumbered which, considering the apparent availability of some of the "warmists" to be full time on-line presences despite apparently holding paying jobs, was interesting.
In the main, from what I can recall, the "votes" tended to split something like 70:30 or 60:40 mostly. Fairly consistent so one could suggest, perhaps tongue in cheek, that they were statistically significant even if scientifically questionable.
Evidence of repeated failures of strategy would not be welcome, presumably, so best to abandon the strategy or, perhaps, hide the evidence. No need to make the calls to arms public once a private communications network has been established? I have no idea if that is what has happened but there certainly seem to be examples of rapid crowd creation from time to time for "blogosphere" pieces with comments enabled and a number of "warmists" as first responders.
Games for all. It probably matters little in the medium to long term.
True it matters little, except to people who foolishly think the result is meaningful and democratic, or want to fool people into thinking that. There certainly have been times in past years when the vanguard "warmist" sites coralled their readership into attempts to swamp opinion related 'polls'. Unless there was something nefarious (or seemingly nefarious) going on with the poll in question I don't recall many attempts that worked. However I would not claim to be aware of all of them or even a small proportion.
I think after a while they realised they were likely to be outvoted on anything a "non-warmist" site picked up on and applied the same sort of voting tactics. It mattered not whether votes were recorded and only single votes allowed (somehow) or repeat votes per day were acceptable to the poll. The efforts usually seemed to be outnumbered which, considering the apparent availability of some of the "warmists" to be full time on-line presences despite apparently holding paying jobs, was interesting.
In the main, from what I can recall, the "votes" tended to split something like 70:30 or 60:40 mostly. Fairly consistent so one could suggest, perhaps tongue in cheek, that they were statistically significant even if scientifically questionable.
Evidence of repeated failures of strategy would not be welcome, presumably, so best to abandon the strategy or, perhaps, hide the evidence. No need to make the calls to arms public once a private communications network has been established? I have no idea if that is what has happened but there certainly seem to be examples of rapid crowd creation from time to time for "blogosphere" pieces with comments enabled and a number of "warmists" as first responders.
Games for all. It probably matters little in the medium to long term.
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
Mine too .... varies on a daily basis that is.
There certainly have been times in past years when the vanguard "warmist" sites coralled their readership into attempts to swamp opinion related 'polls'. Unless there was something nefarious (or seemingly nefarious) going on with the poll in question I don't recall many attempts that worked. However I would not claim to be aware of all of them or even a small proportion.
I think after a while they realised they were likely to be outvoted on anything a "non-warmist" site picked up on and applied the same sort of voting tactics. It mattered not whether votes were recorded and only single votes allowed (somehow) or repeat votes per day were acceptable to the poll. The efforts usually seemed to be outnumbered which, considering the apparent availability of some of the "warmists" to be full time on-line presences despite apparently holding paying jobs, was interesting.
In the main, from what I can recall, the "votes" tended to split something like 70:30 or 60:40 mostly. Fairly consistent so one could suggest, perhaps tongue in cheek, that they were statistically significant even if scientifically questionable.
Evidence of repeated failures of strategy would not be welcome, presumably, so best to abandon the strategy or, perhaps, hide the evidence. No need to make the calls to arms public once a private communications network has been established? I have no idea if that is what has happened but there certainly seem to be examples of rapid crowd creation from time to time for "blogosphere" pieces with comments enabled and a number of "warmists" as first responders.
Games for all. It probably matters little in the medium to long term.
True it matters little, except to people who foolishly think the result is meaningful and democratic, or want to fool people into thinking that. There certainly have been times in past years when the vanguard "warmist" sites coralled their readership into attempts to swamp opinion related 'polls'. Unless there was something nefarious (or seemingly nefarious) going on with the poll in question I don't recall many attempts that worked. However I would not claim to be aware of all of them or even a small proportion.
I think after a while they realised they were likely to be outvoted on anything a "non-warmist" site picked up on and applied the same sort of voting tactics. It mattered not whether votes were recorded and only single votes allowed (somehow) or repeat votes per day were acceptable to the poll. The efforts usually seemed to be outnumbered which, considering the apparent availability of some of the "warmists" to be full time on-line presences despite apparently holding paying jobs, was interesting.
In the main, from what I can recall, the "votes" tended to split something like 70:30 or 60:40 mostly. Fairly consistent so one could suggest, perhaps tongue in cheek, that they were statistically significant even if scientifically questionable.
Evidence of repeated failures of strategy would not be welcome, presumably, so best to abandon the strategy or, perhaps, hide the evidence. No need to make the calls to arms public once a private communications network has been established? I have no idea if that is what has happened but there certainly seem to be examples of rapid crowd creation from time to time for "blogosphere" pieces with comments enabled and a number of "warmists" as first responders.
Games for all. It probably matters little in the medium to long term.
As for democratic ... nah, nothing is truly democratic without the people having any form of suitable power and influence. In the modern age in the western world that P&I seems to revolve around money. In other places perhaps other factors although democracy may be a distant dream for many.
For now I suppose we can stick with talking about democracy - at least people have an affinity for the word and a mental outline of what it means to them.
LongQ said:
Well the "warmists" seem to think it is important to carry public opinion by any means possible and whilst I would disagree with "by any means possible" it certainly seems that we humans have a herd (or tribal) instinct that exists at many levels but ultimately tends towards one of 2 opinions on contentious issues. (I am assuming that "don't knows" would be split evenly if pushed since their numbers would not be critical in this matter as polled.)
As for democratic ... nah, nothing is truly democratic without the people having any form of suitable power and influence. In the modern age in the western world that P&I seems to revolve around money. In other places perhaps other factors although democracy may be a distant dream for many.
For now I suppose we can stick with talking about democracy - at least people have an affinity for the word and a mental outline of what it means to them.
Far too much bi-polarness if you ask me and far too many people trying to MAKE IT bi-polar.As for democratic ... nah, nothing is truly democratic without the people having any form of suitable power and influence. In the modern age in the western world that P&I seems to revolve around money. In other places perhaps other factors although democracy may be a distant dream for many.
For now I suppose we can stick with talking about democracy - at least people have an affinity for the word and a mental outline of what it means to them.
Diderot said:
rovermorris999 said:
kerplunk said:
so last century? 
Like the warming then.The best person kerplunk could ask for directions is the Tooth Fairy or, in a few months, the Easter Bunny.
Failing all else, there's the Mayor of New York city.
kerplunk said:
Let's face it - you (Diderot) aren't interested in discussing it as evidenced by your lack of input.
Superb irony there on lack of input.Warmism: pixels and politics matter, the data and sound science can take a hike.
While awaiting some banal belief based response I'll make a cup of tea.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff