/s/ClimateSkeptics/ modlog

submitted by neolib from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zyxzevn🐈‍⬛ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I want a discussion about climate or anything else. Based on SCIENCE!

There are quite some posts about how the green-house effect works exactly, with the correct physics.
And how different factors are influencing climate and micro-climate.
CO2 is just a minor influence compared to all other highly variable factors.

Sadly, a lot of mainstream climate post are total shit.
They have a political background, not a scientific one.

The problems has grown due to "authorities" and "experts" putting out false data and made-up facts.
Usually to support the "global boiling" myth.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

So do we need to use links from official scientists that are bought and paid for ?

[–]zyxzevn🐈‍⬛ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Science relates to the scientific method.
Not about opinions and how much money is spend.

And sadly most money goes into agenda 2030 to make energy only affordable for elites.
And for this agenda, they give a lot of money to push and publish bullshit articles,
which are using fraudulent methods to come to a conclusion.

In the sub you can see a lot information that exposes such fraudulent methods.

There are about 100x more fraud articles than factual ones.
So by allowing all articles, the sub would become a huge fraud shit-dump.
There are other subs that support such fraud articles.
And that is completely fine.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I hear you

I got the wrong idea. I'm still against censorship. But I'd suggest a rule where you can post pro mainstream news about climate change but you have to also post your own synopsis about it and in your own words. Most of these are bots and can't do that or if they do it's obvious. Censor them! But I just don't want a good actual human who is a wrong but willing to learn to be censored.

For science I only trust it when it's an experiment I can check myself , can repeat it. Them falsifying climate data and not wanting to release emails about it was the end of that debate. That's why I favor talking about common sense and logic rather than just posting links.

[–]zyxzevn🐈‍⬛ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Hey. It is not censorship, but moderation of the specific sub.
People are free to post in many other subs.
I think "/climate" is very popular for climate scare articles.
I even posted something about a coming ice-age there.

I have been on internet long enough to see the difference between a discussion and shit-posting.
And I noticed that some of the posters are bad actors, to derail the sub.
Probably because of their very biased political background.

And I think that Neolib and Actuallynot are bad actors on saidit.
As they post articles like those from corrupt democrat politicians,
as if they are working for some kind of organization/agency.
(I think most politicians are corrupt).

If people want to start a good discussion about these things.
I am all open for it. That is why I even reply to this discussion-post.

Sadly the level of basic physics on saidit is so low
that I have not even seen a normal scientific discussion.
One the one side I have to explain that climate is very complex system that can not be simplified to one single parameter (which is exactly what the climate commission does with CO2).
And on the other side, I have to defend that the Americans really landed on the moon.

And then we have historical facts that are extremely complex and difficult to discuss,
like Palestine/Israel, Ukraine, realities of slavery, many historical genocides, etc.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's an opinion of what censorship is. And if you're the mod your opinion matters more.

Climate change is like religion. People have faith in it, it can't be scientifically proven. I still like debating religion tho.

I disagree that we landed on the moon but I do understand the science, it's possible we could. Just very expensive and dangerous so they faked it.

[–]zyxzevn🐈‍⬛ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Saidit was setup with a reason-based level of censorship: "The pyramid of discussion"
So as a moderator, I try to keep that level.
It keeps discussion friendly. And it keeps people from wasting time with propaganda lies.

This impression changed due to the decline of moderation on saidit and the increase in spam and propaganda.

A lot of moderators went to other places.
Many were affected by the discussions with the bad actors.
Note: Bad actors are people who try to derail saidit in any way.
They usually come from reddit, but most are democrats/technocrats who think that they need to rule the world.

Bad actors do not believe in any serious discussion, but rather want to tell how wrong you are.
Unlike how we discuss now, with clearly different opinions.

To prevent saidit from completely being taken over by bad actors, I keep an eye on the posts.
And moderate some of the posts so they do not flood the subs with their propaganda or rage-bait.
Just look at how 9gag is full with Ukraine supporting posts, even some Biden support.
Which is not in line with their demographic as it seems mostly right leaning.

So articles with lies and frauds are removed.
From any perspective. I think it breaks with the "pyramid of discussion" to start with a lie.

And propaganda pieces from the IPCC are removed from climateskeptics, unless it is to start a real discussion.
Like: "What do you think about these articles?"
But I see no discussion from any articles posted in that sub.
People like neolib want to dominate in the discussions, so they pick subs that have less intelligent people in them.
I tried to discuss a bit, but they do not respond to simple true statements.
Like: I responded to the changing snow conditions in Italy. And replied that I came there often, and that the snow depends completely on the direction of the winds.
Or on an article on the influence of H2O on climate, I referred to the scientist who gave a lecture on it. Explaining that CO2 did not really matter at all in the whole spectrum of green house effect.
So I think they do not want actual discussions, just to promote their propaganda.

Without moderation, there would be absolutely no skeptical article visible on Saidit,
as 100x more propaganda articles are present.
And they are upvoted via the open voting system, by people with many different accounts.
Which is usual by people who try to influence forums.
But on saidit, this bad influence is stronger, because there are no downvotes.

So you would not have any serious discussion, nor see anything critical of the climate propaganda.
The same was true with the "gender critical" subs.
They were flooded with posts by trans people who claimed things like: they were all nazis if they did not want to fuck them.
The gender critical sub started restricting posts, and that made them less visible.
So due to the attacks, they almost disappeared from saidit to more censored forums.

Also many highly active people left from saidit, due to the continuous posts and replies by bad actors. Which they did not moderate.
And if they did, were attacked by other people.

So without some moderation, saidit would become a shit dump of bad actors and very low quality posts.
And almost no-one would use it.

[–]neolib[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think he's actually on your side, in "believing in the opposite of mainstream science" sense.

[–]Jiminy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He shouldn't censor stuff then