On moderation in climate (and other science) discussions

Climate change articles trigger some of the most heated discussions on Ars Technica. Unlike discussions about which virtual keyboard is better or which approach to cloud storage makes the most sense, climate change is a scientific matter with political ramifications. It's also the focus of astroturfers (fake grassroots movements), trolls, and the willfully scientifically illiterate.

At Ars, we take trolling very seriously, and that means that we find our moderation team issuing a disproportionate number of actions in threads about climate change. That in turn has led to cries of oppression from moderated users, alongside charges that Ars is stifling alternative viewpoints. It's not hard to see why some science sites have caved and banned such discussions altogether.

In the spirit of the new year, we wanted to hear from you on these moderation practices. This article gives everyone a place where they can comment openly about the moderation policies here as they relate to climate discussions. If you need to refresh yourself on our general Posting Guidelines, please do so, but understand this one key point: we do not allow debate over moderation in discussion threads (today's discussion is an exception). Normally, meta-discussions about moderation and posting policies are appropriate only in the feedback forum.

When it comes to climate discussions (and science discussions in general), we identify trolling based on two simple principles that apply to all discussions on the site:

1. Article discussions are meant to be just that: discussions. Contributions should be beneficial to the discussion.

2. Misinformation is not beneficial to discussions. Furthermore, discussions do not exist in order to give a platform to broadcast misinformation.

Starting a discussion by throwing out phrases like "the whole thing is a giant fraud" is a quick way to get a moderator's warning. Even if you're not aware of the history of our understanding of the greenhouse effect (there's over a century of it) or the decades' worth of work that has built our modern understanding of the climate, it should be clear that diverse governments, private organizations, companies, and scientists all recognize the reality of climate change and take it seriously. So this statement clearly violates principle 2, but it also violates 1. There's really no possible useful discussion that can grow out of a statement that's completely oblivious to reality.

Some things, however, aren't necessarily self-evident. One typical example is a comment like "scientists are ignoring the influence of the Sun." That's certainly not true, as a quick trip to the IPCC website will tell you. But it's something that takes a modicum of effort to learn. It's not worthy of moderation, at least not a first (and we note that other discussion participants are quick to correct errors like this). The problem comes when the same people come back and say precisely the same thing the next time we cover the topic.

Suddenly, we've gone from a potentially honest mistake to a willful misrepresentation. Again, both moderation principles end up being violated: someone is using Ars to spread misinformation, and they're doing so precisely because they refused to take part in past discussions where the error was corrected. That will earn warnings—and eventually a ban.

Does this solve everything with moderating climate discussions? Obviously not. There seem to be plenty of people who are willing to sign up for an account, leave an inflammatory post, and never appear again. This system also relies on the judgment of moderators and will only work when they have time to dig through posting histories and examine past behavior. But you can help with that. Our moderators can't monitor every discussion, so reports from readers are key to good moderation. Let us know when you see real trolls.

If your views are outside the mainstream on this issue, how do you avoid running afoul of the rules? The simplest way is to ask questions and engage in a discussion over the answers. There's a big difference between "scientists are so dumb they forgot about the Sun" and "I've heard that the IPCC models don't incorporate solar variability—is that true?" Another good way to engage in the conversation is to explain your reasoning. Listing the reasons why you think that the Sun is not considered properly will help you avoid trouble.

In either case, engage in the discussion that follows. Everybody might learn something. Do that here as well if you think there's something about this approach to moderation that could be handled better.

A final note: never mention Al Gore. Unless you put giant <JOKE> tags on it, we'll probably ban you.

Update: This guidance is also in place for all discussions related to science and health topics.