Reddit, an internet social news and entertainment website that makes claims that it does not censor, has now begun censoring “deniers” of climate change. The science is settled according to this website and we cannot have “deniers” tainting that “settled” part. Not sure who their science editor is that made this decision, though it may have been Al Gore, who is delighted anything contradictory to his billion dollar enterprise will no longer appear on Reddit.
First, Reddit appears to censor all the time. I found many articles concerning this from the past. In grand liberal fashion, they simply lie about their lack of censorship. The lies are the reality to these groups. So this is not really a breaking news story on censorship.
However, as was pointed out on another site (I’m paraphrasing here):
Using the new policy at Reddit as a guideline, science is now :
1. Create hypothesis.
2. Build model.
3. Alter data as needed to prove model.
4. Announce findings as settled science.
5. Burn heretics that oppose you.
If memory serves me correctly, this is how religions rise to prominence. Especially number 5. If the theory cannot stand up to scrutiny, then just destroy anyone or anything that would falsify it. The new science–religious in behaviour while claiming objectivity.
Again, RIP science.
Scientific badger
Watching Those "Who watch the Deniers" 
‘ As far as I know, most “skeptics” don’t dispute that the world is getting warmer and that CO2 contributes.’
The likes of youkipper don’t give a Damn what skeptics actually believe- it is what the likes of youkipper THINK you believe, that counts for them. And they are never going to believe the truth about skeptics.
“The likes of youkipper don’t give a Damn what skeptics actually believe”
That is not too far from the truth. As a real sceptic I don’t really care what anyone believes on science based subjects, only what they can support with the best evidence from the most qualified on the matter.
Just curious–what other skeptic blogs do you conside worth keeping an eye on?
I don’t think I ever mentioned ‘skeptic blogs’. If it looks that way I apologise. I only meant blogs with posts by people who are demonstrably qualified on the subject they post about. True their opinions may not always coincide with their peers, but can be more interesting.
I would hardly call Curry a climate skeptic though. She has been critical of the behaviour or group think of some scientists and institutions but fully accepts AGW as a fact and that more CO2 will warm the planet.
The best qualified blogs are probably Real Climate, Accuweather Climate Blog, and Climate Feedback. If you are only interested in the more contrary view the last publishes posts by the likes of Roger Pielke, Jr. but his own blog has a very political, rather than science bias.
I am familiar with Real Climate and Accuweather. It appears Climate Feedback is no longer being updated. Actually, one of blogs I find most useful is Science of Doom. Lots of documentation and research addressed in a very scientific manner.
If agreeing that CO2 will warm the planet and that the planet is getting warmer is not really skeptical, then wouldn’t the views of those who deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas (found mostly on Principia Scientifica and clearly banned on WUWT and some other “skeptic” blogs) be the only true skeptics out there? As far as I know, most “skeptics” don’t dispute that the world is getting warmer and that CO2 contributes.
There will always be a conflict concerning “qualifications” for bloggers, since skeptics do not accept an “appeal to authority” argument as other than fallacious and may see no need to list their qualifications. It’s about the subject, not the author. It’s about the data, not the author. So in that since, questioners will always be at odds with advocates. The only way that would change is if questioners decided to follow authority and not data or belivers followed data and not authority. That does not seem likely.
(Originally, when I started my first website on conservation, I did not put my name on it. I have always believed that the facts and evidence are what counts, the strength of the argument and not the speaker. I finally put my name on it when a friend insisted I needed to. I still see no need to post my diploma and continuing education on a blog that deals with evidence. It’s the strength of the evidence that concerns me, not who put forth that evidence.)
Youkipper: I intended to come across that way. I do that when people make unfounded assumptions about my qualifications based on their own prejudices. For all you know, I could be a working climatologist. Your assertion was based on ????
I have covered the fact that climate science is not “special”. It is not magic (though many would argue with that) and it does not take an advance degree to know what is involved. It also does not take a university class. There are books and blogs and research papers that will tell you what the science involves at an “elementary levels”.
Judith Curry writes a blog on climate and teaches at a university. Perhaps that would be of benefit?
I am unclear as to what “blog lacks direction” means. I made it clear I was following “Watching the Deniers”, which pretty much lacks direction. If I’m following a blog that lacks direction, does that not mean that I am wondering about too? Am I missing something?
The most disturbing thing about climate change “science” is the actual nature of it. It far more resembles religion and politics than science. Only the “annointed ones” know the truth. Only the chosen ones can ever understand. Note the last rule in my piece: Burn the heretics. Maybe not burn, but definately duct-tape their mouths or jail them. Science does not fear questioning or opposing views. You don’t find astronomy sites stating: “All flat earthers are banned from commenting on this sight”. They know they are right and can prove it. They don’t fear that someone will figure out the emperor has no clothes. Climate science is terrified of people commenting. They crouch in dark little corners and scream “Heretic”. It’s quite disturbing to actual scientists.
As for your question on my degree, you would be wrong.
“Judith Curry writes a blog on climate and teaches at a university.”
And her blog is a good example of one that is worth keeping an eye on.
Glad you like it.
BTW have you seen that there is a free course on the basics of the science of climate change, it’s challenges and solutions run by the University of Exeter?
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/climate-change-challenges-and-solutions
It starts on 13 January for 8 weeks at only 3 hours study a week. Since you have zero credibility when it come to qualification to blog about the climate, I thought you might be interested in completing it to prove you have at least the most basic level of understanding of the issue.
In fact it might be a good idea for this blog which has lacked are real direction. You could do a weekly post on what you have learned and your sceptical criticism of it. That would be a win win as far a blogging and credibility is concerned.
If you do sign up let me know and I might too, and we could swap ideas, it would be interesting to do it with someone with your sort of perspective
Okay, first I need to know what “qualifications” I need to be a blogger on climate change. If the answer is “you have to be a climate scientist”, then, no I am not a climate scientist. However, that would limit politicians to political blogs, MD’s to medical blogs, economists to economic blogs, etc. I can see a quick clearing out of internet blogs…..
I suppose I could “take the course”. It’s at an elementary level, with no prerequisites, so it’s going to be way too elementary for my taste (It says for “someone entering university–I’m past that point by a degree.) I don’t see how dropping back to entry level classes on climate change will help anything as far as my blogging. Also, if I did the course and still wrote the same stuff, then what? I have a class in elementary climate change philosophy and now I have credibility? I’m not sure that’s a plus……Anyway, I will consider the idea of taking the class.
“Okay, first I need to know what “qualifications” I need to be a blogger on climate change.”
You need absolutely none. Any wingnut or fruit cake can do it any many do. But none of the blogs are worth the time to read. The only ones worth wasting much time on are those by people who have at least some demonstrable knowledge on the subject, and the best are by experts whose day job is related to the subject.
In your reply you unfortunately come across as rather stuck up and self important with things being “way too elementary for my taste” and “dropping back to entry level”, especially since you appear not to know the difference between science and philosophy. Would I be wrong in assuming that your degree isn’t a BSc?
Anybody interested in a subject they hold no qualifications in has to start at an elementary level. Even though I have a BSc and several other diplomas and higher level qualifications I make no claim to understanding climate science above what the scientists say their research shows. I too would have to start at an elementary level but I have no qualms about it and do not consider it ‘dropping back’.
It is not my position to convince you to do any course or demonstrate some basic current knowledge on a subject you frequently blog about. You can carry on as you are and it will make no difference but I really would be interested in seeing a blog based on the subject as it is being taught by universities and any critical review of it.
For balance here is what one of the moderators has said, and it sounds perfectly reasonable to me;
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
I don’t think they are the first to block those people who insist on commenting without reference to the accepted published science.
I’m sure they are not the first, but the website claims to be very open-minded. (By the way, I read that piece and numerous others before writing this piece, plus went to the Reddit site.)
From the “About” page on Reddit:
This agreement is meant to encourage a fair and tolerant place for ideas, people, links, and discussion.
You may not purposefully negate any user’s actions to delete or edit their content on reddit. This is intended to respect the privacy of reddit users who delete or edit their content, and is not intended to abridge the fair use or the expressive rights shared by us all.
Banning one whole group does not seem to be in line with this philosophy. It’s their webpage and they can ban whatever they want, but they should expect backlash if they claim to be open and are not.
“reddit is intended to be a place for your entertainment”
This also appears to be a false claim–it’s for the entertainment of the moderators in some cases.
Most telling is the claim that the messages are being removed because the skeptics are far too persuasive and have to be silenced. That, to me, says climate change has failed to make its case while skeptics have.