The Conversation censors even suggestions

So, the (extreme far left) Conversation website has taken down my comment about Tax and dividend: How conservatives can grow to love carbon pricing.

I didn't bother taking a cut and paste of my original comment, but it was pretty tame (for me).  It went something like this:

Trying to tell conservatives what they should think (based on what you think they should think) isn't the way to go.  If you want conservatives (and indeed skeptics and denialists) on board then the pro-Climate Change scientific community needs to call out their more radical peers for making outrageous claims (like that half the cities of the world are going to be under water within 80 years) rather than simply attacking anyone who questions it.

Scientists who may actually agree with climate change are afraid to challenge some of the more extreme claims out of fear for being labelled a denier or skeptic.

If the scientific community doesn't call them out, then it gives the skeptics ammunition to point at failed predictions as proof the whole thing is wrong.


That was pretty much the gist of it.  All I was asking for was for the scientific community to call out its zealots who are making outlandish statements on the grounds that, much like the story of the boy who cried wolf, if we continue to hear outlandish predictions (and spend real money to try to prevent or mitigate against their outcomes) which then prove to be false, then we're going to stop listening to the predictions.

A bit like the priest who says to an atheist that the atheist needs to give half his money to the church lest he go to hell.  A better approach would be to tell the atheist that if he gives him 1% of his money that won't go to hell in addition to going to church.  The atheist is likely to say "I'm being promised salvation for only 1% of my money and a bit of time, what's the harm?"
Once in church, the priest can then increase the amount of money requested, whereby the (former?) atheist might decide that slow incremental increases aren't too much to bear, especially for eternal salvation, up to a point.

No, the way these climate alarmists work is that you're all in or you're all out, the only difference between the priest and a climate alarmist is that the priest is only saying that if the atheist doesn't go to church (and give some money) that his soul will be lost and the climate alarmist is saying that if a skeptic doesn't join the cause (and give lots of money) that everyone is lost.

It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy on all counts:

1. If climate change is man made and we manage to stop it, they'll (rightly) take the credit;
2. If climate change isn't man made and it stops (or it didn't exist) regardless of how much money we throw at it, they'll (incorrectly) take the credit;
3. If climate change is man made and we don't manage to stop it, they'll blame the people who didn't believe them; and
4. If climate change isn't man made and it doesn't stop, they'll blame the people who didn't believe them.

Notice that there's no scenario in the above where climate change believers will ever admit that they were wrong.

Remember, science is repeatable and must have results and be transparent.  When pro-climate change people collating data 'lose' inconvenient data before it has a chance to be backed up or verified by an external source isn't science, it's just crap.

If people who question those actions are then attacked for even questioning the 'word', then it's not science, it's a religion.
Notice the similarities between Islam and Climate Change:

• Both believe that it's ok to attack non-believers;
• Both demand more than their fair share of space and representation;
• Both groups are defended unconditionally by the media, despite questionable actions;
• Both groups have radicals who say/do extreme things that connected to their core beliefs, yet are somehow 'disconnected' when they go to far; and
• Both groups have wealthy backers financially supporting their spread (the UN for CC and wealthy sheiks paying to build mosques in Western countries).

Overall, both groups have honest people who mean well, but both groups have radical groups out to push their cause.  Both groups have underlying organisations behind them that stand to profit from their success and people should always be suspicious of a group offering to 'save' you for money, but only if you sell your soul.