My only problem is spamming by deniers, and not discussion.

......there's no reason we should allow people who deny science into this group.

and the occasional denier who wanders in here becomes a nice chew toy for a while.

Welcome to DU.

there should be one place where all can just discuss the impacts, find more resources, brainstorm solutions..i don't know about anyone else but my time on the forum, in this group, is limited. why waste more time arguing with those who will not accept scientific facts?

Failure to know OTEC means Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and that it is the only zero-carbon form of energy production that is net-cooling of planet Earth is failure to have any useful clue toward discussing a solution.

Jimmy Carter, being a Nuclear Engineer in the Navy attempted to accelerate OTEC to crush OPEC and their Oil Embargo. OTEC has tons of side benefits too, but one of them is not profits for right-wing politicians financed by BIG OIL.

They will make great use of this energy source

Last edited Fri Jun 27, 2014, 07:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Which they actually can't, therefore they contribute about as much to the discussion as believers in geocentrism do to an astrophysics forum.

Trolls are not welcome and add nothing to the conversation.

Aptly.

Apparently.

I do find it curious, though, that you come into a protected group and disrupt it with personal, inane nonsense.

"Smug"? Really.

...but apparently it's still too much for you to grasp...

Posturing and internet bravado is not thought and impresses no one.

They can go and peddle their denier rubbish somewhere else. .

But I spent a decade debating those fuckers and honestly, I'm tired of it. Generally it can be enjoyable, but I don't think anyone here has the fortitude to do it anymore.

So fuck 'em, they don't belong here, and if it lets us lurkers have a more peaceful experience, I'm OK with that.

me have to stick my head in and see what all the fuss is about. I voted no because when people call personal attacks and slander debate, all I see the shit that goes on over there at FR. Our world is in trouble and to them solution is more death and destruction or simple denial, well, they deserve to be banned.

either way, the conclusion I reach is the same.

and exactly the type of crap they'd post, the "my graph is better than your graph" game they'd play...

i've already seen this movie, and it's dumb and i don't want to see it again in there.

especially from the gang that probably gets brownie points from Cato Institute or moonlights as energy lobbyists...

E&E as a group is better served by discussion of reasonable science between like minded people. I think denier positions are better defined as faith based beliefs and should be kept in speculation oriented groups. The science of man made global warming is quite solid at this point in time and discussions that detract from the facts are just that, distractions and dérailleurs. It's unnecessary for those beliefs to be in every post concerning science, and grinding out the basics of "is it or isn't it" in every discussion isn't helpful for advancing ideas. It hinders.

Last edited Tue Dec 25, 2018, 10:53 PM - Edit history (1)

for advancing ideas. It hinders."

That's it, precisely. If we have to keep re-inventing the wheel, two steps forward, one-and-a-half steps back, no progress can be made in any discussion.

It's like trying to have an adult discussion about advisable policy interrupted by people who want to waste our time debating whether Obama is really a citizen, or whether WMD's were really found in Iraq.

The science is settled on climate change. There is no point in debating that point, but only in discussing what to do about it.

I don't need an echo chamber to hear my thoughts reverberate. And I don't see how exclusion serves any useful political or educational function.

As for the abusive, by their works we shall know them, and refusing to respond to their abuse is one sure way to get the message across in an open forum.

If the dysfunctional are forbidden to the public discourse, then the public doesn't learn how to deal with the dysfunctional. And the dysfunctional don't learn what the public expects of them.

So I recommend some smarts here. Who is hurt by inclusion? NObody.

Who is hurt by exclusion? Everybody.

...it's where like-minded people come together in a like-minded community to discuss those specific issues...

Allowing people to enter the discussion who dispute the fact that there is anything to discuss at all, is a bit like holding an AA meeting in a brewery...neither party is going to be happy, and a lot of feelings will get hurt...

so um, yeah, fuck that shit. It ought to be a TOS issue.

The "crazy talk" part of the TOS covers off moon-landing deniers, chemtrail believers and climate change denialists pretty well.

Sid

though I don't think as a sole reason.

Last edited Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:39 PM - Edit history (3)

Climate change is not a conspiracy theory.

Yes I posted those opinions, and yes, I still stand by them.

99% of EVERYTHING is hype these days, and most of that is spurious hype. Including climate science, food science, energy science, you name it.

When you can buy scientific opinions, and the system is corrupt, I'm going to insist that a comprehensive and complete assessment WHICH NO ONE HAS DONE OR POSTED is the basis for discussion.

I wasn't born yesterday, and if there's a way to game the system, they are doing it. That is why ANY information is open to scrutiny, and if some information ISN'T even permitted to be brought to the table, well, it isn't a table, it's a cliff.

That said...

If one wants to dispute the scientific consensus on global warming with "Yeah I don't buy that stuff...just cause..." and one also includes anti-science references to further dispute the scientific consensus, that doesn't belong in this group. It's not the basis for scientific discussion, it's not the basis for environmental issue discussion.

If scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring, that it needs to be dealt with and that humans are substantial contributors, saying "I don't buy it" is not even worth discussing.

Because there's nothing to discuss. No amount of science will convince you because there's more science behind climate change consensus than almost anything you ALREADY BELIEVE.

So talk about it elsewhere. It doesn't belong here because it's not an environmental discussion, instead it's a discussion of your own psychology.

This group is not here to figure out how to convince people that climate change is real who refuse to accept that on the basis of scientific reasoning. If you have to be convinced with some other type of evidence, then that discussion belongs in the group where such types of discussion and such types of evidence (if you can call them that) are appropriate (creative speculation maybe?).

but not here.

You set a standard here - " comprehensive and complete assessment" which is a red flag for potential trolling. Global Warming theory and research goes back to the 19th century. It's not a new idea. We have mountains of scientific evidence and the neat thing about science is that it is available to everybody. You can reproduce the experiments yourself if you want to invest the time.

Orson Scott Card once said about Creation Science "What they want is for everybody who ever lived to have laid down on top of their daddy to die. And they want that record never to have eroded from time or water or wind. And even if they had all that they'd say they was just cousins." (http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/60671)

Allowing outright lies about science to have parity with the actual science is harmful.

Is there room in the public discourse for all? Yes. Is this the public discourse? No. Is the information in this group on climate change better than the public discourse? Yes, because it includes very little of the claptrap denial nonsense so common the public discourse.

Misbehaving kids trying to be the center of attention can cause actual harm, if serious issues need to be discussed and time is limited.

Or, as an alternative, let them be seen but not heard.

Besides, the history of corrupted intent on this issue — oil companies paying professional liars and disruptors to confuse, distort and disrupt — is well known. Decades were lost to that greed_

let 'em whine about it in GD.

Sid

or something like that?!!!

Tikki

This is the SOP for the group:

Discuss all things related to environmental issues and energy policy.



It doesn't say "Discuss all reasonable things..." or "Discuss all intelligent things...." or "Discuss all likely and/or proven things...."


It says "Discuss all things."

Those "Deniers" are discussing "things related to environmental issues and energy policy." Their very denial has impacted said policy.

So...if you don't want the wackadoodle POV, y'all need to change that SOP. Otherwise, you're ruling by decree, and operating outside the charge of the SOP. Discriminating on the basis of intellect, if you will.

I personally am of the view that the "Denier" POV is shit, but unless and until the SOP limits the discussion to "No bullshit" then you're being discriminatory to censor those views just because they're stupid.

...about the environment.

sorry.

Look, I think deniers are idiots, let's get that out of the gate right away.

That said, the SOP here says absolutely NOTHING about the "quality" of discourse that is "allowed" here. It doesn't say "No unscientific 'things'" or "No misleading things." And who decides what's "scientific" or "misleading?"

Now, the hosts here are quite free to be martinets and make decisions amongst themselves that go further than what is written in the SOP, but if they DO do that, they really ought to not chickenshit the decision--they should adjust the SOP to make it quite clear that the "deniers" or the people who have an even slightly different take than the mainstream are NOT WELCOME.

Otherwise, it does come off as Rule By Decree. It smells like host overreach, like a little "club" where only people who think a certain way are welcome. Lockstep, or Locked Out!!!!

So, when it comes to sorry, I think your justification is.

And--one more time, because I'm playing devil's advocate, here--I think that whole "denial" thing is bullshit. I've lived long enough to see the changes in the environment. They aren't imaginary.

That said, what I think you're doing--without a change to the SOP--is also bullshit. This is DU, we can handle a few kooks and knock them back with words. And if you TRULY don't want them in your yard, have the guts to say so right upfront....don't post a benign SOP that would lead people to believe that any opinion on the topic is OK to post here.

If it actually went further than that, I might. But it hasn't.

There seems to be unanimous consent that there are a handful of topics or behaviors that will get you banned and we've had a few reminders over the years. I have no reason to believe that the poster involved wouldn't be welcomed back if it was clear that he understood that climate denialism wasn't welcome.

This is, after all, DU. When we say that we're discussing things "related to environmental issues and energy policy", it goes without saying that the reason we're talking about them is because of climate change. It isn't unreasonable to be "skeptical" of some aspects, particularly as prior predictions turn out to be wrong... but outright denialism is over the line.

I don't know the poster's history well enough to judge how "outright" the denialism is, but I'm not aware of any elected/prominent Democrats who deny that mankind is having a negative impact on our climate... so I think it's reasonable to question why that kind of poster survives the frozen pizza on DU at all... let alone in an environmental group.

on speech? Why play "Gotcha" with either trolls or morons? When you're referencing posts written two years ago, you're not making it easy for newcomers to feel welcomed.

I could care about the "poster in question" -- truly. And as I have said elsewhere, I think the deniers are looloobirds. HOWEVER, in the interests of fairness, unless you make that "DENIERS NOT WELCOME" aspect entirely clear in your SOP, you're playing an entrapment game. People join DU every day. Not everyone "knows the culture" or the memes, or what's OK and what's not.

I'll bet you could find morons who don't "believe in" climate change who are reliable Democratic voters for other reasons--like heath care, like equality issues, like "the Democrats helped my (fill in relative) when no one else would." All politics IS local. Not every Dem is a rocket scientist. Not every Democrat adheres to every plank of the platform--it's something that the insular nature of this place seems to forget--a LOT.

If "Outright denialism is over the lline" then just put it in your SOP. Be straightforward. Act with absolute integrity. That way no one can cry, whine, and claim that you're being "mean" to them, sandbagging them, or driving them away.

With a few words you could ratchet down a LOT of drama--why not get together, come up with a sentence or two, and ask Skinner to add it?

I'm heading out of town for the weekend, but I'll get right on this on Monday.

Meanwhile, the poll seems to indicate that there is popular support for banning deniers from the E/E.

fashion. I do think that kind of shit in this group is a waste of everyone's time; I just think it's fair to let 'em know right outta the gate.

The deniers can feel free to opine in CS.

The poster in question just replied to a thread that showed up under "latest". He didn't even know that he was in E/E, let alone read the SOP.

I don't have a problem with a modified SOP, though there are plenty of things that can and should get you banned that have no place there. I just don't see how it would have made a difference.

and 'big picture' it's not really about one particular person who may or may not have been a chain jerker, or simply a guy who wandered in from the LATEST page. It's a way to establish the boundaries for people sitting at this particular table, if that's what everyone wants--and it seems to me that the sense of the community is trending that way.

And sure, it will never make a difference if you've got someone who wants to fire up a little drama, but at least it's very clear why the person gets the boot when he or she gets it. There can be none of that "I wasn't WARNED!!! I didn't (sob) KNOW!!!!!"

that's the whole problem with thinking that anti science posters are going to respond to reason and clear statements and or polices and rules.

that their crap isn't welcome here, new ones (or socks) will keep cropping up and wandering in and then get all poutraged that they aren't welcome.

If you want to limit the discussion, you need to make it clear in the group SOP what the parameters are. That way the rest of the board doesn't get subjected to dramatic GBCWs and "Waah they're being mean to me" complaints. If the SOP says "Here's the line and don't cross it" the gripers have no case.

It's rather hard to do. Most of what's called "denial" nowadays has to do more with interpretation of impact.

If you don't define it and you establish a policy of banning "deniers", then every time someone posts something that questions the extreme interpretations you will have an outcry of "ban them", and this board will be far less useful.

I have no problem with banning people that deny the science that says that increasing CO2 causes global temperatures to rise, that temperatures are in fact rising, and that humans are the cause. However, I would hate to see people banned just because they criticize some of the extreme claims made here on a regular basis.

I think I remember someone claiming that in the past people were banned for exactly that, but I haven't been around long enough to know. Is there anyone on the list of banned people that meets that description?

global warming as identified by scientific consensus. (They may also but not necessarily deny the validity of science itself, leaving all up to the auspices of their anthropomorphic desert god).

Interpretation of impact, including feedback mechanisms (and subsequent responses) should certainly be discussed. It's better than doing nothing.

for at this juncture to deny the evidence for fossil fuel fueled climate change is quite analogous to being (as our probable new Secretary of Health describes himself) a "vaccine skeptic"—a similarly delusional cult belief.

Vaccination (and before it variolation) has saved millions from an early grave, whilst the fossil fuel industry has directly put hundreds of thousands in the ground, and indirectly quite likely millions more. As the climate crisis unfolds tens (if not hundreds) of millions may well perish.

My understanding is that the first thought that fossil fuel might possibly impact the climate of the world was raised at the end of the 19th century by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius. By mid-Twentieth century true concerns were being raised...
https://www.livescience.com/humans-first-warned-about-climate-change

Who am I to stop them?

When the deniers can actually present facts and not opinions they can post in a forum/group like E&E. Until then, their ignorance belongs in Creative Speculation.

The more I learn, the more I'm beginning to understand the validity of the lukewarmer position. I've spent a fair amount of time reading Judith Curry's blog and it's hard to argue with many of the points she makes. Her own journey from being a global warming alarmist to a luke warmer was clearly driven by the evidence, not any shift in her politics.

That being said, my own personal experience in this forum is that any challenge to the "climate change will kill us all" mindset is met with derision and calls for your banning. Personally I think that people that claim the human race will become extinct within 50 years because of climate change are anti-science. There certainly isn't any peer reviewed literature to support that position, and yet people are allowed to post that kind of drivel regularly in EE. We are (rightly, IMHO) banning climate-deniers for being anti-science. My question is, why are we not banning people expressing extreme climate doom for the exact same thing?

Everyone should post but their statements should be evaluated based on the content.

Denial of AGW is an extreme position unsupported by evidence.
Henceforth, it should be treated as such...

...

yup

It would be nice if I thought deniers would learn something, but I've found them to be like creationists -- too brainwashed and willfully ignorant to accept actual facts.

Here is a letter I drafted for the PostPartisan column in the Post. I fear that it won't get in the paper, so I decided to try it here, to see if I could stimulate some discussion about what my professional background tells me is a panic response to a very real and complex problem - climate change - the current cold snap in the Eastern U.S. notwithstanding:

"As a climate science user, I have formally contributed to and given professional papers at sessions on radical climate change, specifically the onset of the Younger-Dryas climate reversal. For more than 35 years my primary research interest in archeology has been human adaptation to climate change, particularly adaptation to the end of the Wisconsin glaciation; the Younger-Dryas reversal, and the Holocene onset. Archeological data does help climate scientists date past climate events and even expose the magnitude of those events.
My skepticism about climate statistics and models is fueled, in part, by extensive experience using predictive models and by the politicization of climate science and the latter's impact on good science in general. In that regard, I have some questions and comments about both Darryl Fears' article, ("Three-decade 'megadroughts' forecast for Southwest') and the lead two paragraphs of James Downie's PostPartisan take on the relevance of Gov. Scott Walker's (R-Wis.) views on evolution.
With respect to Fears' article, scientists are fairly certain about the relationship between global warming and greenhouse gasses. We are less certain about the causes of global cooling. Most of the Pleistocene and Holocene climate charts that I have seen show that the onset of warming is usually gradual and cooling precipitous. According to some geologists, the Earth is in the most prolonged warming period in more than 200,000 years. In other words, if we are not in a new geological (warming) period, we are past due for a major glacial advance.
Is it merely a coincidence that the Little Ice Age in the North Atlantic ended with the onset of the industrial revolution in the early 19th century? Similarly, is it possible that anthropogenic warming, if real, has actually prevented the onset of another ice age? Another Little Ice Age, much less another major advance like the last one, would quickly cause untold misery and death due to chaos, cold, and starvation, and surely a quick end civilization as we know it.
An study recently published by a respected climate scientist in the Russian Academy of Sciences claims we are entering a serious cooling period, which will peak around 2050 and will be comparable to the Little Ice Age. He bases the hypothesis on a long term study of solar activity cycles. With the current climatic stabilization and possibly cooling in the North Atlantic, he may be onto something.
That being a basis for skeptically evaluating Fear's article, I am also concerned that both climate and weather have momentum and lag times. For example, with weather, our warmest months are not June and July, when the sun is at its highest, but July and August, when average temperatures should be falling - that is if the sun were the only factor influencing our weather, which we know is not the case.
Since long term climate history shows warming is generally gradual and cooling precipitous, and having long lasting effects, maybe the proponents of climate engineering should take a step back. Whatever they do they better be able to anticipate precipitous global cooling and turn off or reverse what they start, if that would be possible (e.g. the Jurassic Park effect). Better yet maybe they should be more humble and "not mess with Mother Nature," who has a habit of producing mass, climate change induced extinctions.
With respect to Downie's article, he states that "Eighty-seven percent of scientists believe humans are driving risky (climate) change." Like, when is good science a democracy? As a climate science user, I question the credentials of these scientists. First, Downie does not tell us if they are climate scientists or climate science readers/users, like archeologists and nuclear engineers. Second, he does not tell us what percent of the 87% of them tend to vote democrat or republican, which in this age of politicized climate science might be relevant.
Politicized climate science clearly plays a role in why the issue, climate change, rates so low in voter concern. Democrats support the dominant view and Republicans support the minority view. I can't think of a scientific issue that is more politicized.
Former Vice President, Al Gore's movie, "an Inconvenient Truth," which showed only one side of the issue, is a case in point, Nobel Peace Prize or not. The problems with "climategate" and the sequestering of the data behind the "hockey stick graph," politically motivated or not, are reasons for skepticism about both the scientists and the science.
That is a good thing, especially when the results of such un-scientific acts might impact public policy toward supporting drastic measures, such as attempts to artificially induce global cooling."

I am interested in your take on the apparent climate engineering danger and the politicizing (both ways) of climate science and its adverse impact on both science and how science is perceived by the public.

Sincerely,

Mike J. Ph.D.

My understanding of DU is that the site is actually sane.

Outside from occasional trolls?

I just will NOT put up with it any more. We may as well debate heliocentric vs. geocentric, and I don't have time for that either.

I mean it's bad enough that the press releases call hydrogen an "energy source" and non-polluting.

But when a poster stitches in graphics not from the article cited, and misleading graphics at that, repeatedly and with impunity, I become very suspect at their motives.

To wit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112783503

You oxidize it, you get water. You put it in a fuel cell you get electricity. Why is it not a potential energy source and what is polluting about it? (Other than the caustic chemicals required to make fuel cells)?

There are none so blind as they who will not see. And that's who we're dealing with: those who deliberately shove their heads in the sand rather than look at the plain facts before them!

Is it the deniers of unborn babies?
Is it those who want to deny the people their private property rights?
Is it those who want to deny law abiding citizens their 2nd Amendment rights?

... and here's one that someone prepared earlier ...

Why tolerate falsehoods? RFK and others have called for laws against these stupid deniers. Their denials all over the internet end up hurting people in the long run. Can you imagine letting a teacher teach this to kids? Google should actually have an algorithm that puts this crap at the bottom of the google search. Like result number one million. I would say a cash fine if the person espousing it is influential, like in a major newspaper. A second violation would be a much stiffer fine. A third violation means that the denier has to perform community service. I'm not going to suggest somebody go to jail, but maybe a weekend with drunks in the drunk tanks would wake up these people. This is like stealing. Everybody knows it's wrong and it's punished. This is wrong and it should be punished.

Would you allow neo-Nazis to post on a Jewish Issues forum? I think not!

Of course not! Everyone has a right to say their side of things.

people have a "right" to speak their mind without interference from the government. In a less formal sense, as in a privately organized sub-group on a privately hosted internet discussion board, people have a "right" to speak their mind only to the extent that there are others who are willing to grant it to them.

There is also a strong philosophical case to be made that people don't have a "right" to say stupid things.

Anyway, as was noted by others, there's no compelling reason why a group devoted to discussing astrophysics should welcome a "heliocentrist" into the discussion, and there's no compelling reason why a climate science "denier" should be invited to participate in EE.

or a viewpoint is the way to handle this--especially on DU.

Open and honest discussions is the only way to begin to change an opinion that doesn't align with facts

...those with evidence/facts on their side have nothing to fear from opposing viewpoints.

We have those here? Yes, they should be permitted to embarrass themselves. DU is strong enough to deal with it.

Stupid question

and it will be obvious that they post for themselves only as no one will visit
or participate in their rhetorical, repetitive arguments. Such sad and lonely forums
...echo chambers for the hard of hearing.
They need argument to exist (and get paid) so I think their forums will be short lived.

I enjoy entertainment.

The more we engage with them, the more we know and can more effectively refute their arguments.

It's fringe stuff, whack-a-doodle GOP prattle. It's not real, or honest, or valid.

If this group doesn't have parameters that specifically exclude nutty talk, though, you can't really keep them out (and be fair about it) unless you change the rules.

Of course, I said that two years ago, too...so why in hell was this thread kicked? Hmmmmmmm. Somehow, it ended up back in my post box!!!!

Had to dig pretty deep to find this puppy! Very odd, indeed....

(love the slang and screw the spell checker )

ALL ABOVE MENTIONED !! "If you do't like this little song well just grin and bear & if the shoe fits wear it&quot .. AND THIS WHAT THEY SHOULD ALSO BE PREACHIN' IN FLORIDA AND ON ALL PAID FOR TV, RADIO'S NOW .Tthis is the reason for all young voters who ain'y yet voted to get off their butts now and vote !!!!!

At this late hour we are especially Floridians in the midst of at least 3 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL MISTAKES AND CRISIS the above mentioned, be they your friends or you do have an environmental obligation to vote Dem across the board ...especially anyone under 30 yrs old havin' just too much fun, too idealistic, too damn cool etc etc .. including all millennials .... with special reach out to all people of color who can should vote for VOTE DEM ACROSS THE BOARD with also community GOOD REASONS TO GET INVOLVED NOW!!

Now I will list one ...t their are many others ..but this one will have the most future now shock negatively impacting on all black poor black and white, and river communities along the way east and west of US 1 from south FL to north Central Fl ... LOCALS ... refer to it as (THE THUNDER TRAIN FROM HELL) .. IT'S THUMBS DOWN an ergonomic noise pollution heath hazard whose far reaching damages have not in any way been assessed, environmental potential damage maker, a planning and business night mare and an introduction of yet another not so random variable of probable hazardous per loss of animal as well as human life perpetuation even a first glance ... how this inconsiderate business legislation is, was fast tracked is not at all unusual in the "CARPET BAGGER STATE RIGHT TO WORK STATE" ;

#1 This ([The thunder Train From Hell) legislated with token, incomplete, compromised biased ergonomic and environmental evaluation ..should be a RALLY-ING CRY ... TO ALL clack young men in Florida and around the states ...who love their momma's baby bothers , pregnant wife's, baby moma's, and extended families as theses multiple trains will be traveling at an average SPEED OF 100 MPH .. and stopping 32 times a day... through all hoods and poor white neighbor hoods also . no one has come out with the spec's on ergonomic impacts to thousands of humans as well as animals ...let alone the long term environmental damage especially to-the already threatened in extreme crisis ( Indian River Lagoon) that border the train track much of the way .....

Now this alone and many other proposed non-opposed republican legislation disguised as creating jobs minus any regulatory considerations ..should be the call to alarm to all voters under 30 ..that may not be brain dead ... YET?? Note: all Fl FDEP/EPA offices are staffed with skeleton crew's ... nearly al environmental tech as well as consultant jobs are 80% fewer since 1994 ..since their became a majority of republican senators and congressmen as well illegal redistricting ..... Downside & no small wonder that many many environmental professionals have been out of work for years ..
YES THE FOX IS , HAS BEEN WATCHING THE CHICKEN COOP IN FLORIDA ... and young black voters voters all young voters owe it to themselves, families and future to get out and vote Democrat across the board ...ASAP ...fo every-ones sake


Note: that this call to arms for environmental activist future noW-DEMS doesn't include paying heed to any & all all CRABS as ya might as well be talkin' to the wall or a Mooney or some one in a catatonic state ...WHATS WITH THAT ?? ...is a waste of your time at this late hour ...hey just aren't gonna vote for the environment. egocentric lurker naively stupid, fact less, paranoid, special interest, head in the sand, stupid is as stupid does, environmentally & logically challenged, & or un-educated-spoiler-rabid-(plannin' on goin' to heaven' bible thumperin's .. mindless set that sing with the chior "It'll take Care Of Itself" !!?? .... In all due respect Environmental Crisis Denier's should/need be hence-forth be checkmated) because we have work to do, especially at this time, and their can be special provisions made for them challenged baby mentalities poltico-anti-regulatory-knee jerk-stone-wallers in adult bodies as binuss' as unusual mentalities ... any such progressive adden-dumbs to proposed FL environmental crisis legislation can be added taged on such providing current legislative Env. DENIERS extra short bus-transpo-vougers to get-em-up to speed, ALONG WITH other relocated special resources such as crayola's, art paper, show and tell activities , including also: public domain instructional elementary school video's including: specially allocated acclaimed video series in Laymans terms "Jonnny WhyIs The Earth Not Flat", "Johnny Where Does It Come From", "Johnny Where Does It All Go", "Is Jesus also Our Garbage-Man Too?" "Johnny Is Oil just for Cookin'" , "Johnny Who Owns The Earth", "Susie, Why Can't I swim with the dolphins Anymore?" .......
Note this has been and still is Environmental Tech/fundraiser.. who walks the walk a resource for the environment, ..environmental fundraising event management etc etc ...as a hands on sustainable gardener ..Environmental Jazz acousutic Musician Fundraiser. organizer, manager, promoter of 4 major stables of acoustic musicians over 30 years per events gathering's fundraisers,.. and eventual series of prime time show casesopen mics .. that put more musicians on stage than any one organisation south of nashville me ... FrankieCisco ..Harris an green X-union card carrying Dem since 1969 ... yes I went to Woodstock & camped out ill prepared with (2) foxy Brunets, & one blond my sister & Bobby Dylans formost groupies "Davis Peel & The Lower East Side", madf at our own bovby dylan at the time ..cause he had sold out-& gone electric ... those were the days I could see 8 ft to the bottom of the river

I'm the son WW2 my Hero, old world union technician grandson of Klammath river Native american Reservation X-constable Depression Era Dead Eye Harris .environmental empathy is was in mu blood so i legitimized it with poor luck in a right to work state ....but i recycle, garden and volunteer... what are you gonna do besides vote democrat or move ?/

I've notice a few people who are quick to call someone a troll just because they disagree or because the other person demonstrates a lack of ideological purity.

Climate change is not an ideological issue. It is a matter of scientifically demonstrable fact. The science is on our side and we have a mountain of evidence, theory and experiments we can use to verify those facts.

Banning deniers only makes us look weak, ideological and scared. We should take every chance we get to change a denier's mind. On this subject, we don't get to hide behind "It's not my job to educate you." It IS our job to educate the ignorant.

Yes, there will be trolls but they will identify themselves by their behavior, not their ignorance. We can deal with trolls being trolls and ban trolls. But ignorant does not equal troll.

as long as they don't take it over. Free exchange of information outweighs the potential damage.

That climate denial is wrong and immoral is a slam-dunk.

dont know where to post this so will try here,,scot pruitt is a nut,,quoting bible to back him up he is straight up bat shit crazy, he alone will kill 50 years of progress on the environment

Ten years ago I might have voted "yes" thinking we could either learn from their posts about how they think or educate them, but sitting here in 2019, I don't believe most "climate deniers" don't believe in climate change--I think most DO know full well this is real but have an agenda to slow down and prevent implementation of anything to fight climate change. Some of them are in the energy industry, or are heavily invested in it, and want to squeeze every last dollar they can for themselves before this whole thing collapses. There are some people who actually have a fantasy of "surviving" what is happening and the collapse that will soon happen. Some perhaps honestly can't accommodate something as frightening as dramatic climate change into their thinking (I feel some sympathy for this type of denier who is motivated by genuine fear) but that is a psychological issue that scientific information is unlikely to satisfy.

The hardest thing to grasp is how quickly it is happening; much sooner than we were warned as children. Every minute, every day matters. The only thing we really have is time, and I'd rather not waste mine.

If there are genuinely confused people at this very late date, there are only about 10,000 books, documentaries, scholarly papers and websites devoted to this topic, and another million or so news articles. The jury of worldwide science returned its verdict decades ago. It's happening sooner than most predicted. It's happening NOW. We shouldn't waste a breath, a heartbeat or a valuable second playing games with deniers.

My rationale for a "NO" no vote is only that we already have so many attention-starved, showboating, bot-like contrarians on DU in the last couple of years, this is one of those hot-button issues that seems to bring out the worst in some DUers.

I, for one, signed up for DU back in 2004, but the expertise back then was so abundant and humbling, I didn't feel I had much to contribute at the time. I continued to lurk in awe for a couple of years. But by 2006, most of the experts had bolted, presumably to other, more suitable and productive forums.

As the respect level devolved at DU, seemingly without much monitoring, I too left in frustration for other forums or venues. I returned in 2016, driven by the Trump election disaster to join the "adults in the room" to assume the sort-of "Den Mother" role to purvey messages that are driven by factual information, unity, encouragement and hope.

Since my rejoin, I have learned to avoid topic threads populated by negativity and confrontation, and have tried very hard to temper my own responses even when I felt like I wanted to knock somebody's block off. And so far so good, I'm still here.

Climate change and global pollution are topics that have recently become near and dear to my heart. And since the China recycling crisis which has yet to be resolved, I have anointed myself the "Queen of Garbage" as I aspire for appointment to the citizen Volunteer Waste Management Advisory Board in our county, which is vastly-neglected and cash-starved but sorely in need of waste reduction/recycle-right community outreach and education. Somebody's got to step in to ignite the correction of all the "wishful recycling" bad habits that are contaminating recycled material hauls which are so dirty and filled with garbage waste that all are going directly into landfills that could have otherwise, been recycled. That SOMEBODY may as well be me. So as I gain my "wings of expertise", I'm feeling there is a lot to be learned from all of you on that journey.

Because we're almost out of time to temper (and maybe reverse) some of the effects of climate change, I would prefer my time here in this topic not be wasted on uninformed, inflamed responses, which deniers seem to have embedded in their DNA. Would I welcome alternative and different points of view? YOU BET! But I also feel like there are enough disruptive deniers and bots on the regular "internets" so I'd rather not burn precious time sparring with them here. Hope that's ok with everyone.

Blessings--KR (Kat Roach)

"One side doesn't want to even try to hear the other and it creates negative feelings on both sides".

So are you saying both sides must cooperate and hear each other or are you saying just the Dems won't listen?

Welcome to DU.

But I only mean that metaphorically . I am feeling extra rebellious these days...but I am still peaceful and non-violent. I meant they are frauds who should fired and pilloried in public.

as ignore person(denier) ignore keyword, ignore phrases, etc.

If, and it always is, their opinion without any facts to substantiate their opinion, I ignore them.

I posted a rather grim video earlier and would love to see a scientific paper that managed to refute the hot model to my satisfaction, even posted by a denier who didn't know what s/he was posting.

And if it was their usual standard for science, it would be a pleasant chew toy for a half hour or so.

Of course, rock headed idiots who refuse to face even the mildest established facts (rising sea level, coastal erosion, drying river systems worldwide) are absolutely infuriating to deal with.

A fully rational species would have read the data by the 80s, at the latest, and shut down every single coal fired power plant, restricted car usage, invested in extensive rail systems, and poured money into the R&D of leapfrog technologies for home heating and lighting while alternate ways to supply electricity were developed and built. We are not a rational species and it hurts to be reminded of that.

So I'm divided on this issue. I would love to see the worst model refuted, even if posted bu a delusional denier secure in his happy bubble of "mother earth/god/whatever will protect us." My pessimistic ass just doesn't think it will happen.