Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 230. (Read 636458 times)

Thinking over my post above, I believe it is fair to say that if the mis labeled category "climate deniers" were banned from a discussion, all decisions and results from that discussion would be wrong, and thus the implemented policy would be useless.

Except for the great opportunities for graft and corruption.

Yeah, you illustrate the problem of which I speak.  Quoting from the link...

I published a piece that criticized and parodied the work of well known climate denier Anthony Watts

Now, going to the actual views that Anthony has, which are quite moderate.

"Now I'm in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors." He further avers that what most bothers him about scientists and others who claim global warming is serious, is that, "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society."

It would take some very ignorant people to ban Watts from a Reddit forum.  But as he's been labeled a climate denier, obviously he is banned.  I can show the same issue with other major "climate deniers".  Their actual words and actual stated positions are not the MASSIVELY EVIL EXXON DRIVEN propaganda, quite the reverse.

The propaganda is all from the true believers.  And they must be getting pretty frustrated, since the planet isn't cooperating with their forecasts of doom.

I was surprised to even see it still on youtube. Mr Mann asked youtube to bring it down, claiming his face was copyrighted and they did. This one must be a reload?
But this is not the first time the "good people" found a way to ban the opposite views, and not just because they were trolls, according to them.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/08/19/youtube-reinstates-banned-climate-video/

Great video, I had not seen that for a while.  That was when climate dogs jumped the shark.

I tried discussing climate on internet forums, generally re estimates of climate sensitivity were too high.  That was my opinion based on reviews of basic raw data and analysis of it (background in numerical analysis, signal from noise, etc).  Try to sell that to a believer in AGW, good luck.  They are for the most part the rudest, blindest bunch of faith driven apostles you will ever run into.

Seems the latest IPCC report has proven me right.  No big deal, I would just like to use this as an example of how the religion-style belief patterns has corrupted science.

By the way, in general, so called "AGW deniers" largely hold this view - that the sensitivity is overstated, not that it is zero.  The very stereotyping of very intelligent and knowledgeable people is indicative of the problem I cite above.  

'Nuff said....

No, that's not enough said.  Re reading my above comment, the implication of Reddit's action is that after stereotyping me, they would have banned me, and thus the scientifically accurate statements I made would not have been in the discussion.

That's worth pondering a bit.  Along with the CERN Cloud data, and the somewhat worrisome sunspot lows, and something we really, really do not want... global cooling...

Three simple statements.

1. Reddit is private and therefore fully within their rights to censor content as they see fit.

2.  I personally have no real opinion on climate change, but do believe in free expression and speech.

3.  My opinion of reddit drops today.  Thoigh I support their right here, but find their position distasteful.

Well, while we're at it:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/al-gore-caught-warming-globe-to-increase-box-offic,2111/

One word: Hockey stick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

... and this is why these people get banned.
If educated people want to have a serious scientific discussion, it's perfectly reasonable to have a few troll-free places for them to do so. I agree that a subreddit can be a private place.


By the way, climate change deniers always remind me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281

Anthropogenic global warming has been proven to be a fabricated lie.

Also 33,000 scientists signed petition stating it is a hoax.

P.S. It is to get a carbon tax on everything, but that is irrelevant to the proven fact that it is junk non-science and fabricated data.


There is no science. I and others refuted it all.

Why should I bother to repeat when you retards are too stoopid.

THAT I could agree with. Banning should not be a solution.

That is perfectly fine. I agree. Reddit is private. Not sure about the second part: "...Why don’t all newspapers do the same?". The intention is to make sure there will be no places for "non believers" to express there views beyond reddit, and that is the real message there. Only vetted places should be allowed to filter for people who agree with each other.

No they shouldn't be banned, reddit should setup a tinfoil section for the anti-science brigade.

It's a big Internet - there are plenty of places you can go and air your views.  Or you can create your own site.  Meanwhile, reddit has apparently decided they are serving the market of people who want to discuss the subject without the interjections of those who disagree.

Freedom of speech is a property right - you have the right to use your own press, your own soapbox, etc.  Nobody's obligated to provide one.  And some people just want to be left alone in private.  If they do, of course, the rest of us are free to point them out just in case anyone wants to avoid that group.  Maybe that's all you were doing here.

So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?

[...]
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.

Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.

The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.

The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/



---------------------------------------------------------------------
In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME


Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html