The Conversation has always been heavily behind the alarmist side of the climate debate, and has featured in this blog many times in the past.

Now however it has taken the extraordinary step of banning any dissenting views on climate:

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.

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.

There is a huge range of dissenting opinion, from outright “denial” to educated and careful scientific critique, but we can be sure that The Conversation will interpret the ban as widely as possible so that nothing disrupts the desired consensus viewpoint. No doubt will be allowed.

The Catholic Church had the same idea when they sentenced Galileo to house arrest for “falsely” claiming the Earth orbited the Sun. Look how that worked out…

We really haven’t come that far since the 1600s.

Everyone agreeing with everyone else…

“Snowcone and the Snowflakes.”

Oh but the ABC is completely balanced, the Left will wail. And to them it probably is – every view is of the alarmist Left.

Monday’s Q&A was a disgrace. Five alarmists plus Leftist Tony Jones discuss the “science” and – surprise surprise – everybody agrees with everybody else!

How about getting Richard Lindzen to take part? Or Peter Ridd? Or Stewart Franks? Or any one of the thousands of respected, qualified scientists from around the world who question the rabid scaremongering of the Green machine?

Here are just a few examples (including old Snowcone chiming in to agree):

• Kirsten Banks: It’s very sad to me. We’re losing all of our flora and fauna. [All, Kirsten? Really? – Ed]
• Brian Cox: … it’s the pace of change, I think, is what worries the professionals. And I get the sense, in the last few years, that the pace has taken people by surprise. So, it’s actually rather worse, I think, and faster than many of the climate models have suggested a few years ago. [It’s the models that are overheated mate, not the climate – Ed]
• Emma Johnston: we need to get into negative carbon emissions, so we have to start geoengineering, planting trees, potentially finding ways of sequestering carbon in other ways, in order to keep…in order to keep the Reef, you know? 
• Emma Johnston: Every government report says that the number one threat to the Great Barrier Reef is climate change. Tony Jones: Yeah. Emma Johnston: We’re going to lose it.
• Martin Van Kranendonk: And so because Australia is such, you know, a very sort of tipping-point kind of continent, it’s almost like the canary in the coalmine. And we’re seeing the effects of climate change right in our backyard.
• David Karoly: ...there’s at least one – probably more – climate scientists in Europe that have said that the long-term sustainable population of people on the Earth is about 1 billion people in 2100 – not the foreshadowed United Nations population estimates of about 10 to 12 billion people. That’s not good news. Tony Jones: No, it’s a shocking equation, actually. [Yeah, that’s right Snowcone – just agree with Karoly – Ed]

No wonder we are raising an entire generation of children suffering from pathological climate anxiety, bombarded as they are by a constant stream of apocalyptic alarmism without any element of moderation.

Transcript is here.