Who needs science when you can have dogma?

New comments policy for the blog: factual accuracy and false claims made by sceptics not allowed”  (Found on Watching the Deniers)

Translation:  We fear others.  We fear that we might be wrong.  We can’t have evil skeptics over here questioning our climate dogma.  It’s our way or the highway.  Oh–you were looking for science?  Look elsewhere.  It’s all propaganda and dogma and we like it that way.  No challenges no disagreement.  Want to actually think?  Sorry, find a different blog.

Note: This blog allows conflicting comments and other ideas because this is a science blog.

Has the dogma died down yet?

Has the dogma died down yet?

7 comments on “Who needs science when you can have dogma?

  1. Harpo says:

    Wow…. I just spent a bit of time looking at the site and another one called uknowispeaksense (or whatever). It really gives you some insight into the minds of an activist. Of particular interest to me was the Six Aspects Of Denial posts and the treatment of Farmer Dave. There is no attempt to reason with anyone. If you agree then you’re OK, if ask a difficult question then you are an idiot and if you disagree then you are a heretic. If you catch them out (like Farmer Dave did) they just tell you that you are wrong and call you an idiot and a heretic (and then ban you I suspect).

    It is a microcosm of the activist-science being practiced by the IPCC and its’ more zealous advocates.

    • john byatt says:

      well he does get some nutcases there Harpo, check this one out


    • J Giddeon says:

      Yes Harpo, you are pretty much spot on with that quick analysis. I’ve spent a bit of time over there at both WtD and uknow_etc and it is as you say filled with activists who aren’t really interested in either alternate views or valid debate. Anyone found to be not 100% in agreement with the group is set upon with the sole purpose of making their experience so traumatic that they leave.
      At one point there, after I’d made some point which embarrassed the group understanding of maths, I was accused of being a vile loner who was incapable of attracting a women (what the connection was to the point I’d made was immaterial). When I pointed out I was married I was then accused of treating a blow up doll as my wife and/or actually sleeping with my mother. No attempt was made by either the blog owner or any of the usual members to sanction these posts. Indeed they were encouraged.
      There is no sense of proprietary or morals in either site. They are of the view that they are fighting a great battle to save the planet and therefore, in their eyes, normal rules of society don’t apply.
      So while the approved members act like spoilt children, anyone who doesn’t tow the line 100% is booted out on the slightest pretext. One person was banned for pointing out that a post slandered Anthony Watts while another was banned for firstly proving that numbers used and approved by the group were an exaggeration by a factor of 1000 and then drawing attention to completely contradictory posts by the blog owner.

      Finally and worst of all, I was able to prove that posts are quietly altered many days after the event to hide issues the owner would prefer hidden. Altering posts that are libellous or just wrong is one thing. Altering them without any indication that they’ve done so is just plain lying and beyond the pale. But when you’re saving the world, that, I assume is also OK.

  2. J Giddeon says:

    “He’s clearly disillusioned with his site…”

    I think Mike Marriott(WtD) never recovered from the photoshop debacle where he accused Watt’s of doctoring a graph only to find that he, Marriott, was 120% wrong. He seems to have lost heart since then – I get the impression that he has a very high opinion of his own opinion and wasn’t up to the humiliation.

    I know of another commenter who was banned for the crime of pointing out that two of Mike’s posts , just a month apart, made completely opposite claims. Again, pointing out his errors is the biggest crime that can be made.

    I had to laugh at the new policies announcement: “FACTUAL ACCURACY AND FALSE CLAIMS MADE BY SCEPTICS NOT ALLOWED”. Factual accuracy not allowed? Perhaps the sentence could have been better constructed. False claims by sceptics not allowed, meaning, presumably, that false claims by the brethren are still permitted.

  3. Skeptikal says:

    I think WtD originally allowed dissenting comments to increase traffic to his site. He quietly banned a few commenters, myself included… but with more people visiting his site, the inevitability of more dissenting voices emerging has probably become too much for him to take.

    He’s clearly disillusioned with his site…


    That blog-post was made a few days after Australia voted in a government which is committed to repealing the carbon tax.

    I suspect that his website is rapidly approaching its use-by date. He’s trying to sell a product that nobody wants to buy… and I think he’s finally realised that.

  4. Most of Michael’s comment has been edited out for the following reasons:

    First, Michael was warned not to use the “denier” term. I’m tired of editing it. Yes, it’s in my blog title and the word is there for a reason. Otherwise, it’s not used on my blog.

    Second, Michael is just repeating himself with the “listen to the experts” mantra. Until the problem of “appeal to authority” is resolved, appeals to authority are not allowed. I’ve been over and over and over that. Repeated use of logical fallacies does not enhance the discussion in any way.

    Third, I allow comments that contribute to the discussion. You may disagree, but you may not do so using logical fallacies that have been discussed ad nauseum and no using banned terms.

    I am, however, allowing this much of the comment because it makes an important point:
    You yourself has agreed about some of the rubbish that is printed on blogs, especially when I point out it is about the science and not people or conspiracy claims. I have been on many skeptic blogs that are totally devoid of science. Just recently on Jo’s blog I responded to a poster who said that …
    “The plant was ice once. Now its been melting for a long time now. So now there is little ice left to melt. So if you get a glass of water and put ice in it, it will slowly melt, but the less ice in the glass. The faster it will melt. Till there is no ice. Its ment melt for changes in the future.co2 makes for rain, The people wont starve. That’s a good thing. But cancer is on the high. I guess we just have to take the good with the bad.” http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-another-record-900000-square-kilometers-above-average/#comment-1331853

    Sheri: From http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/catalyst-says-consensus-wrong-on-cholesterol-but-unquestionable-on-climate/
    And we’re back to doing exactly what people criticize the warmists for doing–taking one personal experience and extrapolating to the entire universe from there. It’s really no wonder bad science triumphs. It’s very nice, Crowbar, that your experience with pain was so rewarding. If everyone on the planet were you, we wouldn’t need drug companies. On the other hand, if you develop cluster headaches, you may want those companies back. Or at least to let your friends with cluster headaches or serious injuries whose pain they fail to alleviate with deep breathing have some relief. I can take all the narcotics I want and never get pain relief nor get high–it’s said to be something in the genetic makeup. If everyone were like me, we would not have addicts to opioids, but we do. Science deals with what we have at hand, not what we think should be true.
    (There are other comments by Sheri that continue this discussion further down the thread.)

    If comments that are not “factually” correct are always edited out, there can be no learning of why some behaviours on BOTH sides are identical and not appropriate. If we don’t let people post and then explain why their reasoning is unsound, how can anyone learn? I realize that learning may not be the point of advocate blogs. The goal of a science blog should be learning. Also, there is another poster on the thread http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/man-made-climate-change-and-bushfires-in-southeast-australia/#comments who came in as admitted advocate and slowly has changed his tone and possibly his perspective. No one can learn if no disagreement or incorrect information is not allowed. If no one can learn, it’s not about science.

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s