Has the natural science subforum moderation completely lost it?

Look, McCarthyism, Orwellian doublethink, and Kafkaesque proceedings really shouldn't be lumped together under one subforum just because people want to use them as trendy labels... for instance:

Exiloner said:"Everything that needs to happen"?! Give me a break—that kind of anarchic logic is insane. It's like burning down an entire forest just so you have some empty space to plant a few trees 🤦. That’s the exact same bullshit: burning everything down just to build "everything" from scratch.

Honestly, the people who think in terms of "whatever it takes" terrify me. Those are the types who will end up killing you, themselves, their own families, and selling out their entire country and community all for the sake of some fixed, unyielding idea.

And please, don't pull that hypocritical "did anyone report the post?" routine again. Whether members reported them or not doesn't change the fact that this kind of labeling is constantly slipping through your fingers.
Sure, it'll be easiest for you to just wipe the slate clean like you always do—it's become a habit by now—but there's one little catch called a screen saver that's eventually going to come back and bite you in the ass. 😁

Look, I’ll lead by apologizing for how aggressive I was earlier. Looking back, I sound pretty obnoxious—honestly, I’m surprised I didn't get slapped with a permanent ban or at least a massive strike—but my point stands. The fact that the mods stay silent when discussions shift toward the actual physical impact humans have on this planet which is a matter of hard, quantifiable data found in countless peer-reviewed studies has turned what used to be a top-tier, genuinely insightful subforum into a circus of pseudo-politics and fake ethics. It used to be the crown jewel of this entire site, but now it’s just degraded.
And yeah, sorry about that cheap attempt at blackmail—I know that kind of tactic never works around here. 😉

To get straight to the point: Have the people here who actually represent scientific thought given up on defending it in public? And if they have—why exactly?

Good grief, Zachary Mendoza2—I honestly thought you were one of the few people here actually worth listening to... what on earth happened to you?

Well, between work and family stuff, what can I say... 🤷

But let's stay calm, please. PZ is more than capable of shutting down anyone causing trouble. If a moderator shows up later, it will be to deal with the trolls. Once a troll does something even stupider, the penalties get much harsher. Trolling on PZ hasn't paid off for anyone before, and it won't now. Anyway, enough about that; I was just celebrating a birthday—lamb, pancakes, wine, good company, you know how it goes. And I have work in the morning. 😢

Go ahead and take down whoever you think needs to go. When I log back in, I'll join in and clear out the trash myself. It’s fine; nothing is lost as long as the members are still here. 👍

Alright :get those drills ready:

I could spend all day tearing their arguments apart until they’re blue in the face, but if we have to go back to debunking every single page from scratch, when are we ever actually going to get around to discussing the consequences of AGW?
That’s exactly what these trolls want—to sow doubt, distract everyone, and just throw sand in the public's eyes.

And look, I hate that I have to call you out specifically, Zachary Mendoza2, mostly because it feels like the rest of the PZ moderators have gone MIA. If they've checked out, can management please appoint some new ones? Ideally, someone who isn't part of the crowd of pseudoscientific AGW deniers 😁

Also, am I allowed to give Exiloner a well-deserved verbal beatdown, since you didn't ban him for the absolute garbage he just posted? 😁

I have no idea what you're talking about; you didn't include a link. As far as I'm concerned, you can go after whoever you want at GE if they deserve it.
The other moderators are just putting in their time until retirement, so please don't drag their names into this for no reason. Besides, since you have admin privileges, you could be wiped out with just a few clicks if you cause too much trouble.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:I have no idea what you’re talking about—you didn't even include a link. As far as I'm concerned, you can tear apart whoever you want at GE if they actually deserve it.

How am I not? The link is right there along with the quote in the first post... wait, are you seriously telling me this doesn't look like some kind of * demagogue's
garbage?

Zachary Mendoza2 said:The other moderators are just coasting toward retirement, and I’d appreciate it if you didn't drag their names through the mud for no reason. Besides, since you have admin privileges, you can basically wipe someone out with a few clicks if they start causing too much trouble.

Classic. 🙄 "Don't rock the boat too much, or you might upset someone from the holy trinity of administration, sponsors, and relatives."
Is asking for a shred of ethical principle really too much to expect on these forums nowadays?

*Demagoguery is a tactic used by a demagogue; it involves using false statements and empty promises to exploit public fears, inciting hatred, greed, and paranoia.

Historically speaking, a demagogue in ancient Greece was a populist orator who acted as a representative of the people. Today, it refers to an individual, usually a politician, who gains the trust of the masses through false promises, sensationalist accusations, and illusions to manipulate their behavior. Anything described as demagogic is inherently false and intentionally deceptive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagoguery

Henry Sanchez2 said:How am I not? The link includes the quote from the first post... wait, don't you think this looks like some kind of demagogue* nonsense?

No. As I see it, that post opposes green extremism just as much as it opposes laissez-faire extremism. It is a legitimate stance—indeed, a particularly valuable one in this era of madness ruling in all its various colors and forms. The rhetoric of that post matches the tone of the debate, which you primarily established.
What can I say—if that post hurt your feelings, perhaps you should refrain from stepping into the ring? You don't seem to be in top form.

Typical. 🙄 "Don't make too many waves, lest you upset someone from the holy trinity of administration, sponsors, and relatives."
Is asking for a bit of ethical principle too much to expect in these parts today?

*Demagoguery is the method used by a demagogue; it involves deceiving through false statements and promises to incite public fear, hatred, greed, and paranoia.

Historically speaking, a demagogue in ancient Greece was a popular orator who acted as a representative of the people. Today, it refers to a person, usually a politician, who gains the trust of the masses and manipulates their behavior through false promises and spectacular accusations. The term demagogic refers to something that is false and intentionally deceptive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagoguery

Yada yada. All you politicians are demagogues by definition. If you actually spoke the truth, you wouldn't be able to seize power or achieve your goals. 🙂

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Nah. From what I can see, that post is just pushing back against green extremism just as hard as it’s pushing back against laissez-faire extremism. It's a legitimate stance—actually, it's a pretty vital one to take in this era of absolute madness, regardless of what color or ideology is driving the insanity. Besides, the tone of that post fits perfectly with the vibe of the debate you basically set the pace for in the first place.

What kind of dark "green extremism" are we even talking about here?
If astrophysicists announced tomorrow that an asteroid was barreling toward us next year—and that we needed to build a rocket immediately to deflect it—would anyone actually call that "green extremism"?
Since when have they suddenly become scientists? The whole concept of planetary disciplines—it’s such a massive, sweeping idea that people love to throw around when they want to sound profound. But honestly? It often feels like we're just trying to force a square peg into a round hole by pretending everything from geology to sociology fits under one giant umbrella. It's an attempt to unify the chaos, sure, but sometimes you have to wonder if we aren't just overcomplicating things to make ourselves feel more organized than we actually are. "Green extremists"? Please—that’s just a label Trump and his band of fossil fuel fossils slapped on them to shut down the conversation. Look, Biden, maybe you haven't quite caught on yet, but I'm the one actually pointing out that planting trees isn't some magic fix for everything.
Get your head in the game... did you actually sit down and read what I’m saying, or are you just skimming the surface? Sites like— MIT Technology Review i Scientific American Are these sites just propaganda outlets for green extremists? 😵 🤦

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Look, if that post actually got under your skin, maybe you should just stay out of the ring entirely. It’s pretty obvious you aren't exactly in fighting shape right now.

Nah, I’m in peak condition—it’s just that the ref clearly lost his compass. Or maybe he just got spooked by the crowd in the tunnel.
Look, just let us fight by the rules of the game. And hey—maybe try actually reading through them for once, assuming you haven't forgotten how to do that.
The guy I mentioned? He’s basically hunting down anyone whose only "crime" is actually doing real science or trying to be an altruist. It's pretty much a witch hunt against people who just want to help.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Whatever. Let's be real—every single one of these politicians is a demagogue by definition. If they actually stuck to the truth, they wouldn't stand a chance at grabbing power or getting anything done. 🙂

Oh, so we’re at the stage where we’ve started throwing insults now? 🙂 What's with this "you politicians" nonsense? I've spent my entire life earning my keep through honest, hard work.
Since when did a scientifically determined fact stop being the truth and start being just more demagoguery?
What is wrong with you, man? You used to be rational.

Alright, fine. If we’re going to dive into how AGW impacts the natural sciences—specifically who’s actually screwing things up when it comes to politicizing science—then let's go. No problem—I’ve got a mountain of material on that, too. Just don't pull any hypocritical stunts and ban me for "politicizing the topic" when you let everyone else get away with it.

And honestly, your grandfather wouldn't have the stomach for this kind of nonsense.

Being a neurotic eco-fanatic is a sin, but I guess under certain circumstances, it's fine. Even when it is "fine," they're just spammers dumping piles of links that nobody clicks. They don't even click them themselves—they don't actually read for comprehension—so why should anyone else bother?

Zachary Mendoza2... wow, that's low. Really low. I honestly didn't expect that from you.

Look, I don't just pull my claims out of thin air; I back them up with legitimate links—unlike a lot of the armchair philosophers floating around this thread. If that’s somehow too mentally taxing for some people, and it's easier to just slap a "spammer" label on me... then fine. Even after I provide word-for-word translations of what actual scientific papers say, play videos where experts state things clearly, or present images and data that speak for themselves without me saying a word... am I still just a "spammer" who doesn't understand what they read?
Go ahead, slap the label on me and delete my stuff since you can't actually shut me down with real arguments, right? ☕

If you want to challenge me, do it properly over in the thread about the consequences of AGW. Tell me if I actually wrote something wrong instead of resorting to this cheap labeling. Actually, don't come at me—come at the scientists I'm citing. You could even send a peer-review critique to any of the geoscience sites I've linked. We'd all be thrilled to read that here on this obscure forum, which is basically the biggest one in the US.
The fact that you—and other "big shots" around here—refuse to read what world-renowned experts in their fields are saying... well, it's surprising you don't realize that ignorance isn't a valid scientific argument.

And why did my last two posts vanish? Are we playing games with Orwellian doublethink again?