The Conversation’s ban on climate change ‘deniers’ fails basics of academic rigour

Conversations are like sex, when they are solo, they are hardly the same thing. But The Conversation website, which claims to offer “academic rigour” with “journalistic flair”, has decided that on climate change the discussion should be all one way.

It will ban what it calls “denier” viewpoints from its articles and comments and goes even further saying it will ban “sceptics” too. Apart from being a fundamental assault on freedom of speech and intellectual integrity, this action flies in the face of scientific endeavour, where the scientific method is founded on the presumption of rigorous scepticism.

MORE: UN bars coal nations from stage at global emissions conference | Academic website bans climate change sceptics

Yet The Conversation’s editor Misha Ketchell says: “Once upon a time, we might have viewed climate sceptics as merely frustrating.”

Now he is going to just shut them down and deny them a voice.

Ketchell also invokes that horrible term “denier” which has been widely invoked despite relying on an obvious echo of Holocaust denial. It is probably not a coincidence his stand comes just days before the global strike for climate action which is triggering emotive virtue-signalling around the world.

“Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse,” says Ketchell on behalf of The Conversation.

“That’s why the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.”

So that’s how this academically-inclined outfit deals with the battle of ideas and scientific debate, it unilaterally shuts down the voices, facts, theories and opinions it disagrees with. Who will decide what level of scepticism is acceptable?

Who will apply the stamp of “denier” on the forehead of others? What level of divergence will be allowed on the extent of human influence in climate change, the balance of costs and benefits in climactic changes or the myriad policy responses that might or might not have an impact on climate forces?

We are not really told. We just have to accept their judgment. This is the exact opposite of their “academic rigour, journalistic flair” tag-line.

The Conversation was founded with taxpayers’ support and still relies heavily on the involvement of publicly-funded universities. This is taxpayers’ money used for the silencing of dissent and the deliberate shrinking and censoring of scientific, academic, environmental, economic and political debate.

Coalition Senator Eric Abetz says this is a “totalitarian” contribution to public debate. He has vowed to investigate levels of federal government funding, direct or indirect, to see if the publication is adhering to commitments.

Surely by preaching scientific endeavour and then using rhetoric like “destroying the planet”, The Conversation is failing even its own standards. To claim academic rigour and then denounce scepticism would seem to prove a distinct lack of understanding about the concept of academic rigour.

We shall see what proceeds but whatever happens, at the moment, The Conversation is a complete misnomer. It is not hosting a conversation. It is having a lend of itself.