I notice that WtD has instituted a comment policy. If I were to institute the policy about not posting anything but “facts”, I think that would pretty well eliminate all postings by advocates. I am curious why when a blog admits only the “facts” it likes, I don’t hear cries of censorship (maybe I will in time). Requiring commentors to use only approved journals, etc. is very effective in removing anyone who questions ACC. If I were to create a list of journals that were acceptable, I suspect there would be protests far and wide. Why is it that shutting down opposing views on advocate sites is “common sense” and “adherence to facts”, but do the same thing on a questioner’s blog and the screams of “Censorship” can be heard coast to coast? Limiting information sources should surely count as censorship, if anything does. (Actually, censorship only applies to the government. I use the term only because it is commonly used to describe not letting people say whatever they want.)
The policy is new. Only time will tell if this is actually an attempt to limit the information presented in the comments section. My guess is the term “non-science quote or website” will show up soon, thus eliminating all disagreement by moderation.
Perhaps my allowing dissent is a mistake. If the new normal is to limit information sources, I should not be accepting any information from journals tainted by “groupthink”, which pretty well wipes out climate science journals. However, since I fully believe that science cannot survive without varying views, I have no intention of following WtD’s lead and banning any inconvenient “facts”.
Peer-reviewed articles: Scientists who believe and work in climate change deciding which articles to publish in their professional journals. One would be shocked if there was anything but consensus. Would a pharmaceutical journal publish an article that said cholesterol was not related to heart attacks and the medication was a waste? Of course not. Peers don’t go against their self-interest. If you want innovation and correction of false or bad theories, you cannot use peer review.
For those who disagree, tell what me you consider the odds that the pharmacy industry will announce study which showed antidepressants do more harm that good and should be dropped as treatment (should such a study turn up in the future). What if they were presented with three large, double-blind tests with results that were extremely significant? What are the odds that a pharmaceutical journal would publish this study/studies? I’m guessing about the same as peer-reviewed climate change journals publishing studies that show climate change is 99% natural and we can’t change the climate like we were told.
Free energy devices: If these were real, the IPCC would demand that the UN have said devices put on the market and at a reasonable price, thus eliminating the need for using coal, NG and oil for heating and electricity. So far, the IPCC has not included this mandate and climate scientists are not screaming out about the conspiracy to block free energy. No government has moved to have free energy devices installed nationwide as a solution to climate change. Probably because these are even bigger scams than ACC and much easier to prove false.
(I added this observation due to the huge number of emails I get daily about “free” energy. I have to wonder how many people actually fall for these scams. Apparently enough to make the scamming worthwhile, which is sad.)