Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[TwitchySeal]

The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.

Thread title is also wrong.  They didn't ban climate change deniers, they just started enforcing a rule that posts have to related to publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

[Spendulus]

The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.

Thread title is also wrong.  They didn't ban climate change deniers, they just started enforcing a rule that posts have to related to publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

Really?

REALLY?

What reddit thread are you looking at?

Because your post indicates no awareness of the actual subject.

[TwitchySeal]

The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.

Thread title is also wrong.  They didn't ban climate change deniers, they just started enforcing a rule that posts have to related to publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

Really?

REALLY?

What reddit thread are you looking at?

Because your post indicates no awareness of the actual subject.

r/science it's a sub that contains millions of threads and 20 million + subscribers.

In which discussion of this article -

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3#Sec6

in this thread -

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/cehgy2/journal_criticised_for_study_claiming_sun_is/

Was shut down.

Now why would anyone want to shut down discussion about an article in Nature that discusses ...

... The resulting summary curve, which is linked to the solar activity curve defined by the averaged sunspot numbers5, restored backward for 3000 years shows about 9 grand cycles of 350–400 years, with the times of their grand minima having remarkable resemblance to those reported from the sunspot and terrestrial activity in the past millennia17: Maunder (grand) Minimum (1645–1715), Wolf grand minimum (1200), Oort grand minimum (1010–1050), Homer grand minimum (800–900 BC), combined with the warming periods: medieval (900–1200), Roman (400–10 BC) and other ones occurred between the grand minima. This approach allowed us to predict the modern grand solar minimum (GSM) approaching the Sun in 2020–20556. This grand minimum offers a unique opportunity for the space scientists and all people of the planet to witness in many details the modern grand minimum and to understand better the nature of solar activity.

Oh, wait ... it's not in line with the required narrative?

This is what was submitted:
Journal criticised for study claiming sun is causing global warming

The Journal it refers to in the title the nature.com article, Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale.

Journal criticised for study claiming sun is causing global warming is an article (with a headline that breaks a few rules) about a scientist criticizing a journal.  That's a third hand account of the study.

Here are the three basic rules for submissions:


I'd recommend reading all of the  submission and headline rules before jumping to any conclusion about why something was locked.

[Hilsgort_T]

I do not know about global climate change due to human actions. Most likely, there are changes, but they are not as strong as they are promoting us. This propaganda is carried out in order to distract us from real problems.

There are many problems, but the first place I put is that people live indulging their minds, not their souls. I mean, our mind deceives us, pushes us against each other, although, in fact, everyone’s soul is the same, all people are good inside. And we all strive for good and light. But the mind distracts and catches us for some problems that do not exist at all.

[notbatman]

"I do not know about global climate change..."

Well I tell you, we're not on a globe.

"...all people are good inside..."

You can't fix ugly on the inside, you can't fix stupid either.

"...some problems that do not exist at all."

We live in a crooked world full of artificial scarcity.

[Spendulus]

The OP in this thread couldn't be more wrong. The trend-line for arctic ice is steeply downwards to the point where we'll be seeing ice-free arctics (as defined for data-collection methods) by 2030.

Thread title is also wrong.  They didn't ban climate change deniers, they just started enforcing a rule that posts have to related to publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

Really?

REALLY?

What reddit thread are you looking at?

Because your post indicates no awareness of the actual subject.

r/science it's a sub that contains millions of threads and 20 million + subscribers.

In which discussion of this article -

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3#Sec6

in this thread -

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/cehgy2/journal_criticised_for_study_claiming_sun_is/

Was shut down.

Now why would anyone want to shut down discussion about an article in Nature that discusses ......
I'd recommend reading all of the  submission and headline rules before jumping to any conclusion about why something was locked.

Note that I deleted my post shortly after you scraped it. The reasons have to do with details of the subject and the writers and criticizers, and my personal knowledge of it. No problem, it is only one of many. Discussion of that article and its issues may or may not be relevant to the subject. but relevance cannot be proven.


Neither of us KNOW why the thread was closed. No problem.

From the rules -
4. Comments dismissing established science must provide evidence
Comments that dispute well-established scientific concepts (e.g. gravity, vaccination, anthropogenic climate change, etc.) must be supported with appropriate peer-reviewed evidence. Links to personal blogs or 'skeptic' websites are not valid forms of evidence. Comments that are overtly fringe and/or unsubstantiated will be removed.

By the above criteria, a comment showing a serious math error in a climate change article would be banned, as it is not supported with "peer reviewed evidence."

"Climate Deniers" are explicitly called out in the paragraph, and were thus banned.

[notbatman]

^^^ [r/science] doesn't accept "peer-reviewed evidence" if you question the official narrative, reddit is mostly a propaganda tool.

That's a place where you can be permanently banned for posting a peer-reviewed experiment from a leading university just because it goes against the theory-du-jour.

[TwitchySeal]

Note that I deleted my post shortly after you scraped it. The reasons have to do with details of the subject and the writers and criticizers, and my personal knowledge of it. No problem, it is only one of many. Discussion of that article and its issues may or may not be relevant to the subject. but relevance cannot be proven.


Neither of us KNOW why the thread was closed. No problem.

I didn't 'scrape' it.  You deleted it while I was responding.  Then, when I saw you deleted it, I went back and merged it with my previous post.
The post broke a bunch of rules, it should've been locked and it was.

^^^ [r/science] doesn't accept "peer-reviewed evidence" if you question the official narrative, reddit is mostly a propaganda tool.

That's a place where you can be permanently banned for posting a peer-reviewed experiment from a leading university just because it goes against the theory-du-jour.

There are plenty of places you guys can post about this stuff on reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/

[Spendulus]

Note that I deleted my post shortly after you scraped it. The reasons have to do with details of the subject and the writers and criticizers, and my personal knowledge of it. No problem, it is only one of many. Discussion of that article and its issues may or may not be relevant to the subject. but relevance cannot be proven.


Neither of us KNOW why the thread was closed. No problem.

I didn't 'scrape' it.  You deleted it while I was responding.  Then, when I saw you deleted it, I went back and merged it with my previous post.
The post broke a bunch of rules, it should've been locked and it was.

Maybe, maybe not. You don't know. I don't know. No reason to assert or speculate.

And as I mentioned, I'm not arguing or discussing that particular issue. It goes into some very deep orbital mechanics and solar physics. Nothing against your response at all.

But you're skirting the issue. Here's a way to understand it. Solar scientists do show hard science showing the effects of the sun on climate. They're not wackos, and they are not climate deniers.

Reddit can and will censor these scientists and their work, because it is not on the simpleton's level of the promulgated climate change dogma.

EG, they categorize such work "Deniers!"

That's idiotic. Further, they give free reign to climate alarmists, who are often as not totally insane.

[TwitchySeal]

The post broke a bunch of rules, it should've been locked and it was.

Maybe, maybe not. You don't know. I don't know. No reason to assert or speculate.

Journal criticised for study claiming sun is causing global warming

The Journal it refers to in the title the nature.com article, Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale.

Journal criticised for study claiming sun is causing global warming is an article (with a headline that breaks a few rules) about a scientist criticizing a journal.  That's a third hand account of the study.

Do you think it followed the rules?

But you're skirting the issue. Here's a way to understand it. Solar scientists do show hard science showing the effects of the sun on climate. They're not wackos, and they are not climate deniers.

Yeah.  The sun has an effect on the climate, and so do humans.

[notbatman]

"...you guys..."

[Spendulus]

...

But you're skirting the issue. Here's a way to understand it. Solar scientists do show hard science showing the effects of the sun on climate. They're not wackos, and they are not climate deniers.

Yeah.  The sun has an effect on the climate, and so do humans.

So as a (somewhat humorous lol) illustration of this, I sometimes post serious science showing we may be headed for global cooling.

This drives Warmers nuts, of course. It's laughable to me, but it engages the True Believers, so of course it would never be allowed in the reddit.

But strictly from the scientific point of view, of course there could be a strong solar cooling trend, a component of human warming, a couple volcanoes with a cooling effect, blah blah blah ad nauseam. Of course the resulting climate is the summation of the various causes, inflow and outflows.

Right there is the proof that climate alarmists don't care about the truth of the matter, and that they are pushing lies largely for political purposes.

As frank1 has pointed out several times, the most important thing is water vapor, and the outbound radiative flux (both IR and visible light ranges).

[Spendulus]

The biggest threat to the Earth?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecast

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1207877/space-weather-news-solar-storm-2019-space-weather-forecast-geomagnetic-space-news

It's the Sun. Combine the possibilities of solar storms causing Carrington events, and wiping out our electronics, with the Global Cooling possibilities.

[KonstantinosM]

The biggest threat to the Earth?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecast

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1207877/space-weather-news-solar-storm-2019-space-weather-forecast-geomagnetic-space-news

It's the Sun. Combine the possibilities of solar storms causing Carrington events, and wiping out our electronics, with the Global Cooling possibilities.

Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life?

I post the PIOMAS from the Polar Science Center. Notice how their website is a .edu And their data I'm sure is backed by teams and teams of scientists doing rigorous research.

You post news articles.

Article 1: Based on the opinion of one "Expert" No studies found during skimming
Article 2: Some sensational nonsense about solar storms.


You're barely on topic.

If this was a forum for serious climate discussion and I was asked whether your post had any merit or added to the discussion in any way, it'd be a thumbs down. Do other people who respect their time need or even want to read this?

[TwitchySeal]

Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles.

From a right-wing tabloid.

[Spendulus]

The biggest threat to the Earth?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecast

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1207877/space-weather-news-solar-storm-2019-space-weather-forecast-geomagnetic-space-news

It's the Sun. Combine the possibilities of solar storms causing Carrington events, and wiping out our electronics, with the Global Cooling possibilities.

Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life?

I post the PIOMAS from the Polar Science Center. Notice how their website is a .edu And their data I'm sure is backed by teams and teams of scientists doing rigorous research.

You post news articles.

Article 1: Based on the opinion of one "Expert" No studies found during skimming
Article 2: Some sensational nonsense about solar storms.


You're barely on topic.

If this was a forum for serious climate discussion and I was asked whether your post had any merit or added to the discussion in any way, it'd be a thumbs down. Do other people who respect their time need or even want to read this?

Ah, but the research certainly does exist, and can be linked to.

[TwitchySeal]

The biggest threat to the Earth?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecast

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1207877/space-weather-news-solar-storm-2019-space-weather-forecast-geomagnetic-space-news

It's the Sun. Combine the possibilities of solar storms causing Carrington events, and wiping out our electronics, with the Global Cooling possibilities.

Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life?

I post the PIOMAS from the Polar Science Center. Notice how their website is a .edu And their data I'm sure is backed by teams and teams of scientists doing rigorous research.

You post news articles.

Article 1: Based on the opinion of one "Expert" No studies found during skimming
Article 2: Some sensational nonsense about solar storms.


You're barely on topic.

If this was a forum for serious climate discussion and I was asked whether your post had any merit or added to the discussion in any way, it'd be a thumbs down. Do other people who respect their time need or even want to read this?

Ah, but the research certainly does exist, and can be linked to.

There's a bunch of peer reviewed research on the Solar Minimum published on AGU. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/


Here are a few:
On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth
What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near‐surface temperature changes?
Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum” like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?

[notbatman]

These assholes are lying to you, all their trashy propaganda about how the Sun works is nonsense, like outer space and the whole dog-on Copernican system. The Sun is not a million mile wide thermonuclear bomb that never stops exploding in your face, you damn dirty apes!

The Sun is a close small disk of sonoluminescent electrical plasma in an upper atmospheric plane, the image of this disk is reflected off of a concave mirror (the firmament) to create the holographic projection we see. The Sun directly measures 32 minutes (nautical miles) across.





"... Seven of the 20 fake articles written by the trio were accepted by journals after being approved by peer-review committees tasked with checking the authors' research. A faux study claiming that "Dog parks are Petri dishes for canine 'rape culture'" by one "Helen Wilson" was published in May in the journal Gender, Place and Culture. The article suggests that training men like dogs could reduce cases of sexual abuse. ..." -- https://phys.org/news/2018-10-real-fake-hoodwinks-journals.html

[TwitchySeal]

These assholes are lying to you, all their trashy propaganda about how the Sun works is nonsense, like outer space and the whole dog-on Copernican system. The Sun is not a million mile wide thermonuclear bomb that never stops exploding in your face, you damn dirty apes!

The Sun is a close small disk of sonoluminescent electrical plasma in an upper atmospheric plane, the image of this disk is reflected off of a concave mirror (the firmament) to create the holographic projection we see. The Sun directly measures 32 minutes (nautical miles) across.

He's not trolling, he really believes this.

He also believes the earth is flat and the moon is a holographic projection.

[tvbcof]

...
The Sun is a close small disk of sonoluminescent electrical plasma in an upper atmospheric plane,  ...

He's not trolling, he really believes this.
...

Nobody believes stuff like this and flat-earth.  It's a tool developed to divert attention away from things which the developers don't want to have a discussion about (because they lose.)  Vaccination and global warming are two such issues.

Whenever I see anyone (seriously) talking about flat-earth or other such nonsense (e.g., reptilians) I assume that they are operatives trying to give legitimate people with legitimate concerns a bad name.  Quite often such people will make really good and valid points on other  counter-narative issues.  That's part of the game.

A related part of the tool is to avoid legitimate questions and discussions by lumping it with 'flat earth' class psyops and rejecting the whole thing without touching to real questions and the real issues.  You see it over and over and over again.  The tool has become completely reflexive to many/most pro-vaxers and warmunista by this time.