Arguing against climate change banned

Arguing against climate change has been banned by ‘weka’ at The Standard. She has moderated out dissenting views to her posts before, but has taken it to a new level of intolerance of differences to her opinion.

She posted Climate change – beyond the politics and the maths and the fear

In the winter of 2014 Russel Norman, as co-leader of the NZ Green Party, said that climate change was the not just the most important issue of our time, it was the most important issue of all time.

It seemed radical then, and appeared to go largely un-commented on. James Shaw said a similar thing last year, and then again, twice, in a speech this year. I remember feeling a surge of excitement and relief to hear this expressed by Norman, not only because we definitely need the suits to be thinking in this way (so all power to Norman and Shaw for taking that message to those communities), but also because hearing the deep truth from people in power brings hope and change.

In the past year I have noticed that the idea of climate change being the most important issue we face is popping up all the time. Many people are now saying it, and this my friends is change happening. People weren’t doing this even a few years ago.

We need to be ready for what happens next, and we need to make sure that as more and more people wake up, that we (collectively) follow the path of change, not the path of denial or rearranging the deck chairs or going down in a ball of flames.

She seems to be referring to just one path of denial, any questioning of her ‘path of change’.

So I don’t mean that everyone has to quit their job and join the front lines. Although that would certainly change things very fast, I don’t think it’s a realistic expectation and I do think more of us than currently are could start to make such radical changes.

But what I really mean is that we all now need to be on a war footing, all of us. Not because CC is a war, but because the recognition within communities during the Great Wars was of the need to put normal life in the context the greater cause. People understood the need to work together for the common good and this was largely a shared cultural value.

No-one is coming to save us. It’s up to us. All of us. While we certainly need high level change, we don’t have to wait for government or everyone else in order to act. We can change now, not because we are sure of what to do or what will happen, but because it’s the right thing to do any way you look at it other than neoliberally.

That’s an odd ideological approach. She is not sure what to do about it, or what may happen, but is sure that anything other than a ‘neoliberal’ approach is good.

We don’t all have to live radical lives, but we do need a radical change in how we are thinking. We need to find the way that best uses each of our skills and situations and resources to put all hands to the pump. We all need to be climate changers.

Her post gets support and congratulations. But not from everyone.

Kelly-Ned 8

Are you all really sure?
Have you actually seen the temp graphs going up? (They aren’t)
Are you actually sure that CO2 which is such a small and very necessary gas is causing the issue (if there really is an issue)?
Are you really sure? Actually read the data yourselves?
Not being manipulated by vested interests? (on either side)
I have yet to see convincing argument that gets beyond ‘we all believe it’ or ‘They all said so’
But please do send me a link as I’ve seen lots of stuff that says it is all natural causes, but I am open to persuasion.

That’s fairly general (and lame) dissent. But any alternative to the collective ideology is not allowed.

[I usually don’t let climate change deniers comment under my posts. The only reason I’m not moderating you out of here is because of the usefulness of replies below. But if you try and run any kind of further denialist lines in this thread not only will I move your comments, but I will ban you from commenting site wide for wasting my time and creating diversion from the post. – weka]

Wasting a moderator’s time is a ban-able offence at The Standard, meaning that if a moderator chooses to spend time shutting down views that don’t fit with their narrative the can self justify banning. It is used as a cute excuse.

Kelly-Ned 8.4

So you edit out all genuine debate? Justifying it by labelling a questioner as a denialist?
Well that is sure to get an unbalanced debate going.

[yes, that’s right. The internet is big place, go somewhere else if you want to debate the reality of CC. You are now banned from this thread – weka]

The reality is that weka has an aversion to anyone debating her posts (and often her comments). She doesn’t want debate, she wants people to agree with her and to congratulate her insight.

Kelly-Ned ran some typical generalised anti-climate change lines, but they are common and they are not going to go away.

Banning any alternate views is going to please the converted at The Standard, but it is a poor way of dealing with the many questions that still should be asked about the complex issues involved with climate change.

Those like weka who try to shut down debate are not helping address the issues.

(There are various ways people on both extremes of climate change views try to shut down debate).

Leave a comment


  1. PDB

     /  18th March 2017

    Why people bother to post on TS and Whaleoil with all the censorship is beyond me.

    In terms of stopping the climate change debate:

    • The could be useful forums, but with so much ‘moderation’ to control their messages they stifle their own effectiveness as well as alternate views.

      • Kevin

         /  18th March 2017

        WO moderation works because it keeps out the riff raff and helps keep the comments up to a certain quality standard. TS moderation doesn’t work because it’s more about keeping out voices and opinions they don’t like – and probably most importantly authors do their own moderation which automatically makes the moderation biased and unfair.

        • WO moderation has also shut down alternative opinions. I was banned from WO after posting a different opinion – with quite a bit of detail backing it up – to a Slater post.

          Many others have also been banned. There is no way of knowing what is open discussion and fair debate and what is censored toeing the bloog line.

        • PDB

           /  18th March 2017

          Whaleoil got rid of the ‘riff-raff’ but also used that as a reason to remove any poster who disagreed with anything Slater might say. The place complains about how TS is an echo chamber then became one themselves.

          • Kevin

             /  18th March 2017

            They’ve allowed quite a bit of dissenting opinion over the UN Resolution issue.

            • PDB

               /  18th March 2017

              I’d suggest because Slater has been somewhat on the back-foot on that particular subject with his flock as he is with his Bill English jihad.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  19th March 2017

              Correct Kevin. There is dissent (as in dispassionate, fact based), and then there is dissent (let’s just take a swing). To enjoy a shelf life as a WO commenter one must understand the difference between the two. Cheers,c

        • Pickled Possum

           /  18th March 2017

          Kev It’s to early on a Sat morning to be reading how “wo moderation works” I very rarely go over to the dark side. Butt I feel a rave coming on about (that site).

          A site where brainwashing is rife. The wo guys and gals writing their mish mash (confused mixture), telling you what you are really thinking and meaning and if it doesn’t sit well with you then FO is the correct response.

          CS has told every one who will listen he is a bull shitta – an exaggerator of lofty heights. He told this to the Judge the public his adoring delusional fans, when he got caught out in the jude collins Deep Shit Saga.

          How he is still doing over in the sea of white wash despicable lies and rife racism is of no interest in most people lives.

          Sometimes Kev I think you sound just like cs wife; you know the only one that loves and sticks up for him no matter how bad he plays the marriage game.

          wo and cs have hurt and changed peoples lives for the worse and he still lives for shits and giggles, I mean for fun. That shows the depth of that man and his co-horts to me and the public. SHALLOW HAL got nothing on them.

          Moderation here on YnZ is what it should be about; Adult stylz, pulling ya horns in … type it like you own it! sort of thing. And if you go over board like some have; testing the waters we get an Ultimatum or 2.

          TS Banning people for having an opposing opinion is like stepping on the same ground as wo. In the end there will only be a hand full of sites where you debate ad fin with not too much shit being throw. This is one of them.

          Climate Change is real, just how real the effects are we may never know, butt our descendants will….

        • David

           /  18th March 2017

          If the moderation was just there to keep things ‘civil’, that wouldn’t be a problem. That is not the case, they are now very heavy on shutting down dissenting views. Not as bad as The Standard, but not much off. It destroyed Whaleoil IMO, and I suspect deeply harmed it’s ability to get stories too.

  2. Griff

     /  18th March 2017

    There is no debate within science.
    Humans are causing the globe to warm due to the release of millions of years of locked up carbon being burned in a matter of decades. This is the universal conclusion of every major scientific body on the planet.
    Arguing against AGW is flat earth society level of ignorance.
    Why should any forum give space to such nonsense?
    You have a right to hold such anti reality views .
    A blog or any other forum has the equal right not to give a platform for them .

    • PDB

       /  18th March 2017

      “There is no debate within science.”

      That is total nonsense of course as debate, differing views, looking at all possibilities and challenging existing science is, & has been part of science since day dot. If there had been no debate in science we would be forced to still believe the earth was flat, continents didn’t move, the universe is static & that bacteria didn’t cause ulcers.

      The FACT is no one can say with 100% certainty how great an influence man is to climate change in comparison to nature is to climate change – hence the debate.

      • Griff

         /  18th March 2017

        The debate in science was over decades ago.

        Arguing that a consensus is not science is like trying to reignite the debate around the sun orbits the earth.
        Any given climate change debate will have a coherent argument on one side and a lot of mutually exclusive illogical twaddle on the other .
        You are entitle to your views
        That is not science it is your personal opinion so in a science debate has nil weight .
        If you can not give evidence for your opinion it is meaningless.

        The FACT is no one can say with 100% certainty how great an influence man is to climate change

        Nirvana fallacy
        The problem X has a perfect solution A.
        Therefore, imperfect yet realistic solutions B, C and D are wrong because they are inferior to the idealised A.

        Science does not deal in certainty, proof is for alcohol and math.
        Science deals in probability.
        The probability we are responsible for all the warming since 1950 is close to 100%..

        Isaac Newton in 1676: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
        Science relies on building a coherent body of knowledge. The unanswered questions on the fringe then become the focus of new research .
        Without building on what has gone before we can know nothing.

        • PDB

           /  18th March 2017

          Sounds like you deal in ‘spin’ Griff, not ‘science’………

          “The probability we are responsible for all the warming since 1950 is close to 100%..”

          Where? Especially considering the planet was cooling between roughly 1945-75…….

          • So human caused warming has been enough to turn around a cooling phase?

            • PDB

               /  18th March 2017

              Perhaps – The cooling period is one of the things not ‘100%’ proven as to its cause…….

            • Most things related to climate trends are not 100% proven.

          • Griff

             /  18th March 2017

            The cooling phase has two probable reasons
            The ocean warming during the 2world war is thought to be due to changes in the number and routs of merchant ships and the number of reading from warships that used a different method to measure temperature.

            The aerosols (polution)released as the west rapidly ramped up production after the war.
            Such particles reflect heat back into space.
            We cleaned up this pollution source around the seventy’s allowing AGW due to CO2 to dominate .

            By the way PDB linking to the American thinker in a science debate is a massive fail.
            It is a right wing fringe rag not a reputable source for science .

            • PDB

               /  18th March 2017

              Griff: “The cooling phase has two probable reasons”

              Griff: “There is no debate within science”.

              Hypocrite much?

            • PDB

               /  18th March 2017

              Also to note – I just did a quick image search for a graph showing the cooling phase, I didn’t go to the website you mention & hence don’t endorse that particular site in any way – another ‘straw man’ argument from you Griff……

            • Griff

               /  18th March 2017

              No just aware of where the actual debate is due to spending years debunking the nonsense from the antiscience brigade .

              You pick out a statement and twist it to be about something else.
              That the globe is warming due to human emissions of CO2 is not the uncertainty around a small part of the temperature record or the theory aerosols cooled the earth in the forty’s to seventy’s .
              Thus you are eth one making a straw man argument .
              As well as doubling down on your previous nirvana fallacy and adding another .
              We don’t know every thing there for we don’t know anything.

              It also shows up your sillyness in your previous position on another thread.
              Scientists talked of global cooling in the seventy’s
              The scientists that where talking of global cooling in the seventy’s were discussing the effect of aerosols.
              Something your present position now ignores.
              You do not have a coherent concept around global warming just a lot of mutually exclusive talking points.

            • PDB

               /  18th March 2017

              Enough talking to you Griff – your hypocrisy is there for all to see above – the debate is ‘settled’.

            • Griff

               /  18th March 2017

              Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution [citation needed] in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

              Illogical little thing are you not .

  3. Kevin

     /  18th March 2017

    Ah, Weka and her safe spaces. So cute.

    TS makes a big deal about what it calls “robust debate”. I read somewhere that the Left believes in robust debate so long as you agree on a certain baseline. In his case the baseline is agreeing AGW is real with the robust debate being what to do about it.

  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  18th March 2017

    The lunatics are still in charge of that asylum. The inmates are beyond help pathetic.

  5. Corky

     /  18th March 2017

    Thanks fo posting that, Pete. That’s the ignorance genuine science has regarding climate change. Its Ok when nuts like Weka are posting on a blog, but it’s quite another when they hold positions of power and have control over climate change science.

  6. patupaiarehe

     /  18th March 2017

    That is nothing short of hilarious Pete. “Disagree with me ,& you’ll be banned!”… 😀

  7. Gezza

     /  19th March 2017


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s