[whybroke]

>...the Marxists would like to use it as an excuse for global domination...

Four post (and counting) on this same topic form the same guy.

I wish there were a place where sane (let alone well informed) people could discuss serious issues related to science and not be hammered by screeching ideologues.

[fusiongyro]

What sort of discussion are you interested in having that this guy is preventing?

[whybroke]

Excessive comments trigger the 'controversial topic' penalty which drives it from the front page.

A conversation requires informed participants. There are few participants on topics that aren't seen. Presumably there is a connection between being skilled and being too busy to look beyond the front page. Or being skilled and wanting to waste time sorting through conspiracy theories for meaty posts.

It's almost trivial to suppress any information that annoys a group by starting a emotion driven fight over nonsense.

Climate change denial is not an intellectually honest different interpretation that can be cleared up by pointing to yet more data. It is a world view that requires obfuscating data. On the most primative level, trolling will due for that.

[fusiongyro]

OK... so what conversation were you hoping to have, that this guy is stopping you from having?

[whybroke]

The unstated premises of your one sentence rhetorical is that spam, trolling and elevated emotions do not degrade discourse. This is erroneous.

I (if my personal case matters) was hoping to observe a conversation among well informed persons on a topic that I could learn from. Out of intellectual curiosity, the only reason I dawdle on this site.

The instant the topic become controversial, that hope disappeared. Thus I expressed my displeasure at that.

And instead I am now having a conversation about conversations with a single person in the least efficient way possible. QED the conversation has been damaged.

[fusiongyro]

Actually, my premise is that there's not much interesting to say about this story. And you haven't come up with anything interesting to say about the topic of "scientists copying US climate data." I contend that this is because there isn't much interesting to say about it, and you haven't done anything to refute that.

The rest is just fruitless handwringing and getting yourself spun up. And this is why I was in favor of the political cleanse, and remain in favor of it.

[whybroke]

What if, regardless of the likelihood of deletion, there were no harm in making backups and one obstacle was funding? Would not a post to a site frequented by members of the scientific community be beneficial?

And is not the very belief that backups are necessary, founded or not, very interesting in itself? Particularly interesting to the scientific community, many members of which frequent this site?

A community devoted to science and technology is going to end up completely vacuous if it forbids anything that might upset the new populist order. Certainly the most important topics will quickly disappear. For example, climate change and hacking by certain state actors are out are already out, both are clearly important and relevant.