Listing of trolls from forum and monitoring of sanctions

[Exnihiloest]

The many facts and studies that I put in support of anthropogenic non-warming, therefore against the argument of authority, have aroused a strong reaction on your part to defend it.

Very often these are enormities largely contradicted by the serious scientific community and widely reviewed by peers.

The only serious being for you those who pronounce the warming, you refuse the arguments of all the other scientists.
"Serious scientific community ": fallacy of the "true Scottish".

[GuyGadebois]

The many facts and studies that I put in support of anthropogenic non-warming, therefore against the argument of authority, have aroused a strong reaction on your part to defend it.

Very often these are enormities largely contradicted by the serious scientific community and widely reviewed by peers.

The only serious being for you those who pronounce the warming, you refuse the arguments of all the other scientists.
"Serious scientific community ": fallacy of the "true Scottish".

Don't complain, Yzy contributes at least 75% of the "likes" about you and he agrees with you on everything else ("science", vaccines, GMOs, chemistry, petroleum, nuclear, intensive agriculture ...). Let it take off with the weather, be nice for once.

[Exnihiloest]

From what I read, I don't see any trolls on this forum, that is to say that those who write give their points of view without seeking, in my opinion, to spoil the forum nor knowingly misinformation.

The problem is that sincerity in no way guarantees either the good behavior of the words in form, or their interest on the merits. As they say, hell is paved with good intentions, one of which, recurrent, is to silence the insult because it would be for a good cause.

Basically everyone is free to express their thoughts, unless we were in a dictatorship. So there is nothing to do.
On the other hand, this is where moderation has a role, that of eliminating posts presenting insults or even slanders. Most of them are indeed made in response to general posts, when the thought expressed does not enter into consensus and offends the blessed-yes-yes. At best you pay the cost of remarks ad hominem. But if you are in favor of GMOs, you will be called a collaborator of Monsanto without even reading what you have written. If it is glyphosate, is it not that you are in the boot of the chemical industry? And if you contest anthropogenic warming or you show yourself too temperate in the face of the pharmaceutical industry, it is because you are only a troll, even a bastard who wants the death of future generations ...

The ad hominem attack, except in the case of legitimate defense, is neither more nor less than a most insidious method of censorship, since it intends to discredit the person who speaks, rather than providing objections to his arguments.

The question about this forum would be to find a moderator who does not participate in ad hominem attacks himself. Christophe being judge and party is not the best placed. I see serious contributors who would do the job perfectly, it's up to him to solicit them, that's my proposal. I know it's a job, but maybe there would be volunteers?

[GuyGadebois]

But if you are in favor of GMOs, you will be called a collaborator of Monsanto without even reading what you have written. If it is glyphosate, is it not that you are in the boot of the chemical industry? And if you contest anthropogenic warming or you show yourself too temperate in the face of the pharmaceutical industry, it is because you are only a troll, even a bastard who wants the death of future generations ...

For once we agree!

[Janic]

For once we agree!

since this is indeed the case:

[Ahmed]

Guy, you write:

Don't complain, Yzy contributes at least 75% of the "likes" about you and he agrees with you on everything else ("science", vaccines, GMOs, chemistry, petroleum, nuclear, intensive agriculture ...). Let it take off with the weather, be nice for once.

I do not know if my metaphor will be enlightening for many, but if we consider their respective positions, I would be tempted to rank Exni in the category of "legitimists" and yzy in that of the "Orleanists" ...

[Exnihiloest]

"Legitimist", but in relation to what?
The government buried the construction of the NDDL airport that I was defending. Environmentalists therefore find themselves legitimists.
I deplore the reduction in traffic lanes to make cycle lanes, which many mayors decide, or the wind farms built all over the place with the blessing of politicians. These are the environmentalists, the legitimists.
I contest a catastrophic anthropogenic warming which is the message of all the media. Environmentalists agree with these media, they would even go further in this direction, they are the legitimists.
I defend glyphosate when it has been banned, at least for individuals. Again, I am not a legitimist.
...
Environmentalism is today a powerful lobby which acts on the policies of governments, the examples cited above demonstrate this. Their messages are almost undisputed for reasons that I can develop, but this is not the subject here. Legitimism has changed sides. As a result, the blessings of yes are today environmentalists. My messages are on the contrary politically and socially incorrect compared to the ambient thought, especially here where it is rehashed with little questioning, as obvious.

[GuyGadebois]

"to eat hay" ...

[Ahmed]

It is not my fault if you derive the meaning of "legitimist" in the sense that suits you: words can be written ... The term (relatively!) Antagonist, "Orleanist" should have informed you.

[ENERC]

Environmentalism is today a powerful lobby which acts on the policies of governments, the examples cited above demonstrate this. Their messages are almost undisputed for reasons that I can develop, but this is not the subject here. Legitimism has changed sides. As a result, the blessings of yes are today environmentalists. My messages are on the contrary politically and socially incorrect compared to the ambient thought, especially here where it is rehashed with little questioning, as obvious.

I note that, on the contrary, the oil, gas, chemical and health lobby are the most influential. They are the ones who have dictated policies for 50 years.
The growing crises in recent years suppressed by media propaganda and police repressions show that the current system is out of breath.
It is not just an oil consumption problem. The problem is societal with the increase in inequalities, the progression of poverty and a consumption model which no longer holds water.
I am optimistic: the current economic and societal system will experience a serious crisis which will lead to profound changes. We will not return to the caveman, but we will evolve towards a connected society, but local in its modes of production. With less oil, gas, more bio, more agricultural jobs.
10 years ago, I was downright pessimite, but progress in agro-ecology, the relocation of energy production, the advance of technologies showed that another society is quite possible. It's just a matter of choice, when there are barely 10 it was utopian.

The sloth's vegetable garden is a great demonstration of this. It is not ideology: it is science of the living environment.

The human is so made that he avoids the uncertain by that he scares. But when many have practiced other forms of production, the information will circulate enough to become credible and reassuring.

I may be a troll because I am optimistic and believe in a profound transformation of society in the next 10 years, but I could very well be wrong. On these complex subjects, there is inevitably a part of feeling and intuition which are not factual. A troll is one who never relies on scientific data not validated by the scientific community. To form a valid opinion, it is necessary, as is often said, to go to primary sources of information.