Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[SgtMoth]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

[1714833181]

1714833181

[Ron~Popeil]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

That kind of stuff is a lot more common than you think. Scientists that questioned the lipid hypothesis for instance saw their grant money dry up because they weren't giving the government the results it wanted. The same kind of stuff goes on with the climate change garbage as well. These scientists live off of their grants so they generally will not produce anything that could threaten their income.

[dwma]

There is no such thing as "settled science." Science is a constantly evolving body of knowledge that by its very nature should demand an ever higher burden of proof.

They called the lipid hypothesis settled science, there was a time when it was a "scientific fact" that the smallest particles in the universe were atoms. It was very recently that it was "settled science" that no particle of matter could be in two places at the same time. All of these "facts" have been tested and shown to be either over simplifications or just wrong.

Any one that calls something "settled science" is trying to shut down a conversation. The next step is to label those that disagree and then to isolate them.

I don't if man made global warming actually occurs. I am no scientist, but i do know that using intellectual and economic fascism to silence opposition is not science.

Yes, people are allowed to have any and all opinions.  Just like others are allowed to ignore fringe elements in order to be productive.

The simple fact is ignoring this issue will have exceptionally grave consequences if man-made global warming is true.  These guys want to wait for "proof" which will only exist after the climate and ecosystem as we know it has been destroyed.

I can ask a 100th time what the fallacy with the basic cause behind global warming is and the question will be removed from the quote and ignored for the 100th time.

[TECSHARE]

There is no such thing as "settled science." Science is a constantly evolving body of knowledge that by its very nature should demand an ever higher burden of proof.

They called the lipid hypothesis settled science, there was a time when it was a "scientific fact" that the smallest particles in the universe were atoms. It was very recently that it was "settled science" that no particle of matter could be in two places at the same time. All of these "facts" have been tested and shown to be either over simplifications or just wrong.

Any one that calls something "settled science" is trying to shut down a conversation. The next step is to label those that disagree and then to isolate them.

I don't if man made global warming actually occurs. I am no scientist, but i do know that using intellectual and economic fascism to silence opposition is not science.

Yes, people are allowed to have any and all opinions.  Just like others are allowed to ignore fringe elements in order to be productive.

The simple fact is ignoring this issue will have exceptionally grave consequences if man-made global warming is true.  These guys want to wait for "proof" which will only exist after the climate and ecosystem as we know it has been destroyed.

I can ask a 100th time what the fallacy with the basic cause behind global warming is and the question will be removed from the quote and ignored for the 100th time.

Funny how a theory of global destruction is such a big deal when radiation from Fukushima is blanketing the globe and is a very real threat proven to exist. Why do you consider this less of a threat?

[dwma]

Funny how a theory of global destruction is such a big deal when radiation from Fukushima is blanketing the globe and is a very real threat proven to exist. Why do you consider this less of a threat?

Lets assume what you say is true, what can we do to stop it ? 

Do you understand what I'm getting at ?

What is the level of radiation I will receive from this from the other side of the world ?  How does it compare to existing background radiation ?

[hdbuck]

Funny how a theory of global destruction is such a big deal when radiation from Fukushima is blanketing the globe and is a very real threat proven to exist. Why do you consider this less of a threat?

yea, excalty! this is coming much more sooner than the GW scam. Scientifical proofs and conclusions are just apocalyptic yet no one talks about it (i wouldnt even assume being off limit when considering Japanese people as an "endangered specie" from now on... as the next big earthquake there will finish their country once and for all).
GW fanatics just cant interpret proofs objectively, they just seem to respond to unprovable theories whilst denying (or maybe just dont care about) real and imminent threats.



GW is just a fucking diversion to fool the average guy about what's really going on.. until it's too late..

[TECSHARE]

Funny how a theory of global destruction is such a big deal when radiation from Fukushima is blanketing the globe and is a very real threat proven to exist. Why do you consider this less of a threat?

Lets assume what you say is true, what can we do to stop it ?  

Do you understand what I'm getting at ?

What is the level of radiation I will receive from this from the other side of the world ?  How does it compare to existing background radiation ?

Maybe the point is you have a lot to learn. Unless you want me to start sending invoices for tutoring maybe you should learn for yourself.
P.S. Answering a question with more questions is not an answer.

[Spendulus]

Funny how a theory of global destruction is such a big deal when radiation from Fukushima is blanketing the globe and is a very real threat proven to exist. Why do you consider this less of a threat?

Lets assume what you say is true, what can we do to stop it ?  

Do you understand what I'm getting at ?

What is the level of radiation I will receive from this from the other side of the world ?  How does it compare to existing background radiation ?

Maybe the point is you have a lot to learn. Unless you want me to start sending invoices for tutoring maybe you should learn for yourself.
P.S. Answering a question with more questions is not an answer.

I wonder if perhaps, for governments, taxing and penalizing for global warming is really just "easy money".  If the government taxed or penalized for something demonstrably real....say any of a number kinds of pollution...the pollution levels locally or regionally are measured, the program for taxation is put in place, and after some years, the results are reported.  The program is then modified or continued or dropped.

But with AGW they cannot measure results of their programs.  In fact, if we back calculate the results of any of the current programs to reduce carbon emissions they don't stand on their own in cost effectiveness, even if you agree with all the presumptions and take the radical fringe alarmist view of warming.

So is it just easy money?  We take your money to save the planet, and you can never tell if we did anything or not.   You know that we hurt your livelihood directly with our taxes and penalties, so you could presume that for the negatives you experienced, there was an offsetting positive somewhere in the environment.

But what if that was not true, and the only offset was the spending by the government?

[Wilikon]

I would love to get dwma's feedback about that news and how of a lunacy (his favorite word) this situation is...  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/16/Climate-McCarthyism-the-scandal-grows



Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause, claims professor


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html





http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

[Littleshop]

There is no such thing as "settled science." Science is a constantly evolving body of knowledge that by its very nature should demand an ever higher burden of proof.

They called the lipid hypothesis settled science, there was a time when it was a "scientific fact" that the smallest particles in the universe were atoms. It was very recently that it was "settled science" that no particle of matter could be in two places at the same time. All of these "facts" have been tested and shown to be either over simplifications or just wrong.

Any one that calls something "settled science" is trying to shut down a conversation. The next step is to label those that disagree and then to isolate them.

I don't if man made global warming actually occurs. I am no scientist, but i do know that using intellectual and economic fascism to silence opposition is not science.

Yes, people are allowed to have any and all opinions.  Just like others are allowed to ignore fringe elements in order to be productive.

The simple fact is ignoring this issue will have exceptionally grave consequences if man-made global warming is true.  These guys want to wait for "proof" which will only exist after the climate and ecosystem as we know it has been destroyed.

I can ask a 100th time what the fallacy with the basic cause behind global warming is and the question will be removed from the quote and ignored for the 100th time.

Funny how a theory of global destruction is such a big deal when radiation from Fukushima is blanketing the globe and is a very real threat proven to exist. Why do you consider this less of a threat?

Fukushima radiation is not causing problems outside of the immediate area (10 miles).     

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Living near a coal plant is far worse then living near a nuclear plant.  Coal plants spread more radiation then nuclear even when you count in major accidents like TMI and Fukushima. 

Protip -   The radiation caused by both is basically a blip in terms of deaths compared to coal mining accidents.   And the deaths in the coal mines are a blip when compared to the deaths caused by coal particulate emissions.   

[dwma]

Funny how a theory of global destruction is such a big deal when radiation from Fukushima is blanketing the globe and is a very real threat proven to exist. Why do you consider this less of a threat?

Lets assume what you say is true, what can we do to stop it ?  

Do you understand what I'm getting at ?

What is the level of radiation I will receive from this from the other side of the world ?  How does it compare to existing background radiation ?

Maybe the point is you have a lot to learn. Unless you want me to start sending invoices for tutoring maybe you should learn for yourself.
P.S. Answering a question with more questions is not an answer.

Ok, I'll edit it.

Lets assume you are correct.  There is nothing we can do about Fukishma.  It is 100% a complete red herring.

You obviously can't use logic.

The amount of radiation I am receiving from Fukushima is not measurable, and furthermore any radiation I measure can not be attributed to Fukushima.  Correlation does not mean causation.

If you are a tutor, then move amongst retards with money because that is the only way it'll work !

[Spendulus]

Funny how a theory of global destruction is such a big deal ....

Lets assume what you say is true, what can we do to stop it ?  

Maybe the point is you have a lot to learn. Unless you want me to start sending invoices for tutoring maybe you should learn for yourself.
P.S. Answering a question with more questions is not an answer.

.....
If you are a tutor, then move amongst retards with money because that is the only way it'll work !

Stickers!  Git yer Scienze Stickers here!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/16/friday-funny-97-sticky-science/

[DonnyMontana]

Indeed. Removing entire topics is nothing else than censorship and that is not the way of science.

[Wilikon]

Funny how a theory of global destruction is such a big deal when radiation from Fukushima is blanketing the globe and is a very real threat proven to exist. Why do you consider this less of a threat?

Lets assume what you say is true, what can we do to stop it ?  

Do you understand what I'm getting at ?

What is the level of radiation I will receive from this from the other side of the world ?  How does it compare to existing background radiation ?

Maybe the point is you have a lot to learn. Unless you want me to start sending invoices for tutoring maybe you should learn for yourself.
P.S. Answering a question with more questions is not an answer.

Ok, I'll edit it.

Lets assume you are correct.  There is nothing we can do about Fukishma.  It is 100% a complete red herring.

You obviously can't use logic.

The amount of radiation I am receiving from Fukushima is not measurable, and furthermore any radiation I measure can not be attributed to Fukushima.  Correlation does not mean causation.

If you are a tutor, then move amongst retards with money because that is the only way it'll work !

Although totally free to insult anyone including myself, making a "scientific" point about your position by calling people "retards" or edit your post days later might not be the best or smartest move. I am just saying...

Keep on the good work though. Don't be afraid. Never edit anything back! Be proud of what you defend! Always! 

[Littleshop]

Indeed. Removing entire topics is nothing else than censorship and that is not the way of science.

On the surface you are correct.  But it is not an absolute. 

If I was in a message board trying to have a discussion and a small group was yelling about how the earth was flat or 2+2=5 I would want to shut them up too.  Putting up debunked junk journal links proving 2+2=5 that link to further lies does not help. 

In a public place you cannot shut them up, you must leave, argue or put up with it.  In a private setting that you control (like Reddit) you can ban them.

[KonstantinosM]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

Not only did he get paid off to deny what is really happening but he is also playing the fake victim card. That's the most ridiculous pile of garbage ever. I'll be sure never to read the dailymail.co.uk.

I wouldn't do that even if someone tried to buy me out. Apparently not everyone has the same level of integrity.

[KonstantinosM]

Funny how a theory of global destruction is such a big deal when radiation from Fukushima is blanketing the globe and is a very real threat proven to exist. Why do you consider this less of a threat?

yea, excalty! this is coming much more sooner than the GW scam. Scientifical proofs and conclusions are just apocalyptic yet no one talks about it (i wouldnt even assume being off limit when considering Japanese people as an "endangered specie" from now on... as the next big earthquake there will finish their country once and for all).
GW fanatics just cant interpret proofs objectively, they just seem to respond to unprovable theories whilst denying (or maybe just dont care about) real and imminent threats.



GW is just a fucking diversion to fool the average guy about what's really going on.. until it's too late..

Watch the full video. This is plain wrong. Fukushima is not a problem to anyone living outside of an extremely small area in japan and even for them it's mostly paranoia.

Climate change is fucking up a whole lot of people's lives already. It has killed a lot of people. This is not an unsubstantiated claim. During a catastrophic event the extra water may be all that knocked over and killed a lot of people's families. Same thing goes about heatwaves, drying out of certain areas and wild-fires.

We only have one planet so we can't afford to be careless with it.

[tvbcof]

...
In a public place you cannot shut them up, you must leave, argue or put up with it.  In a private setting that you control (like Reddit) you can ban them.

My sister and brother-in-law have a kid and they encourage him to feel the freedom to express himself.  It is the opposite of a 'children should be seen and no heard' mentality from an earlier time.

The trouble is that he is a kid and has relatively little ability to engage in thoughtful conversation.  He is motivated by the need for attention and frequently attempts to break up important conversations which are over his head by injecting non-sense or simply being a nuisance by making funny noises at the dinner table and such.

There are times when the kids parents simply tell him to be quite or leave the table.  This especially when the adults are having an interesting and important conversation.

This situation is very analogous to the the global climate change discussion.  For scientists and other intelligent people, the issues are complex enough and nuanced enough as it is, and the interjection of nonsense from a self-interested group (or normally from their minions) is legitimately unwelcome even among those who have a disposition toward giving everyone a voice.

[Wilikon]

...
In a public place you cannot shut them up, you must leave, argue or put up with it.  In a private setting that you control (like Reddit) you can ban them.

My sister and brother-in-law have a kid and they encourage him to feel the freedom to express himself.  It is the opposite of a 'children should be seen and no heard' mentality from an earlier time.

The trouble is that he is a kid and has relatively little ability to engage in thoughtful conversation.  He is motivated by the need for attention and frequently attempts to break up important conversations which are over his head by injecting non-sense or simply being a nuisance by making funny noises at the dinner table and such.

There are times when the kids parents simply tell him to be quite or leave the table.  This especially when the adults are having an interesting and important conversation.

This situation is very analogous to the the global climate change discussion.  For scientists and other intelligent people, the issues are complex enough and nuanced enough as it is, and the interjection of nonsense from a self-interested group (or normally from their minions) is legitimately unwelcome even among those who have a disposition toward giving everyone a voice.

So I should selectively ban the posts that I feel are not adult enough just because I am the OP.
But then why was there a need to create a sub on reddit for a "discussion" when, it seems, the people behind that "thread" were exclusively AGW believers only.

My point is don't call it a "discussion" but a private club then...

[Wilikon]

...
In a public place you cannot shut them up, you must leave, argue or put up with it.  In a private setting that you control (like Reddit) you can ban them.

My sister and brother-in-law have a kid and they encourage him to feel the freedom to express himself.  It is the opposite of a 'children should be seen and no heard' mentality from an earlier time.

The trouble is that he is a kid and has relatively little ability to engage in thoughtful conversation.  He is motivated by the need for attention and frequently attempts to break up important conversations which are over his head by injecting non-sense or simply being a nuisance by making funny noises at the dinner table and such.

There are times when the kids parents simply tell him to be quite or leave the table.  This especially when the adults are having an interesting and important conversation.

This situation is very analogous to the the global climate change discussion.  For scientists and other intelligent people, the issues are complex enough and nuanced enough as it is, and the interjection of nonsense from a self-interested group (or normally from their minions) is legitimately unwelcome even among those who have a disposition toward giving everyone a voice.

...Or maybe what you are describing with your sister and her husband is a lack of good parenting?