Discussion thread: Reddit Bans Climate Change Skeptics

reddit_logoMy inbox has been full of this issue this week, and I see it mostly as a tempest in a teapot. But since there is an interest, I’m putting this up for discussion. I can understand the situation, running the most viewed climate related blog, where I’ve noted that a small minority of people can cause a lot of trouble and waste a lot of time. Those people often go astray of the site policy for WUWT, and sometimes find themselves banned for repeated bad behavior. Those that might have contentious views but aren’t intractable zealots learn to work within policy and stick around, and contribute to debate here. That said, a “blanket ban” just wouldn’t work nor would it be sensible. Imagine if a single WUWT moderator decided to make a blanket policy change here. -Anthony

From Fox News:

Critics are slamming Reddit over a single moderator’s decision to ban climate-change skeptics from contributing to its science forum, attacking the move as “political censorship.”
In an op-ed titled “Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers do the same?” Nathan Allen — who described himself a Ph.D. chemist for a major chemical company and a moderator on Reddit’s “/r/science” forum — explained his decision to wipe comments from some users he dismissed as “problematic.”

“These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking,” Allen said in his article, which is posted on Grist.org. “They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong.”
Allen went on to attack climate-change skeptics further, saying that evidence to support their position “simply does not exist” and that such people are “enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.”
‘[Climate skeptics are] enamored by the emotionally charged … arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.’
- Reddit moderator Nathan Allen

Finally, Allen called for other news outlets to follow his example, asking “if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?”
The move has drawn accusations of hypocrisy, as Reddit claims to be a haven for free speech and debate. The site describes itself as a place “friendly to thought, relationships, arguments, and to those that wish to challenge those genres.”
Brendan O’Neill, in a blog post for the UK Daily Telegraph, said Reddit has “ripped its own reputation to shreds,” and described the move as “political censorship, designed to silence the expression of dissent about climate-change alarmism on one of the Internet’s most popular user-generated forums.”
James Delingpole, columnist, climate skeptic and author of “The Little Green Book Of Eco Fascism,” was even louder in his criticism.

“The greenies — and their many useful idiots in the liberal media — are terrified of open debate on climate-change because the real world evidence long ago parted company with their scientifically threadbare theory,” Delingpole told FoxNews.com, arguing that Allen’s tactic is part of a “classic liberal defense mechanism: If the facts don’t support you, then close down the argument.”

Victoria Taylor, Reddit’s director of communications, told FoxNews.com that while it was Allen’s prerogative to ban climate-change skeptics from “/r/science,” his statements “do not reflect the views of Reddit as a whole, or other science or climate-oriented subreddits.”

More here:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/19/critics-blast-reddit-over-climate-change-skeptic-ban/

h/t to WUWT reader “Pete”.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

221 Responses to Discussion thread: Reddit Bans Climate Change Skeptics

  1. Does anyone take Reddit seriously anyway?

  2. noaaprogrammer says:

    Indeed, a tempest in a teapot – somewhere between Earth and Mars.

  3. Maybe Reddit will ban Phil Robertson too ;)

  4. Onion says:

    The difference between wuwt and reddit here is that the reddit moderator is relying on the 97% consensus as a rationale for banning ‘deniers’. Yet we know that 97% was based on lies and misleading statistics as wells as shoddy methodology.

    If the moderator is incapable of seeing the 97% consensus for the myth that it is, he is surely not fit to determine if sceptic arguments follow from peer-reviewed research. His call for newspapers to close down ‘denier’ comments where the latter have no such rules on arguments needing to be backed by peer-reviewed research, is chilling.

  5. Mac the Knife says:

    I really can’t offer much for comment – haven’t reddit.

  6. Gunga Din says:

    Though I’m not it, I know what Facebook is. I have an idea what Twitter is. I’ve no clue what Reddit is. But it sounds like they are suffering from something along the lines of what Wikipedia went through.

  7. Janice Moore says:

    This is, as I said a couple of days ago, the loveliest Christmas gift Red It could have given to us. “Why are they banned…. ?” will get FAR more people to read WUWT and other science truth sites than would otherwise have but for the ban.

    Heh, heh, heh. So, A-th-y, how much did you have to pay the guy to do that… (JUST KIDDING).

    Thank you, Red It!

    #(:))

  8. Janice Moore says:

    @ Mac the Knight in Shining Armor — lol, good one. I haven’t it either.

  9. mkelly says:

    So PHD chemist bans PHD physicist or PHD geologist or PHD other chemist because they cannot possibly know what they are talking about. They but not he cherry pick.

  10. john robertson says:

    Are you sure this is not a publicity ploy by another, dead in the water, website?
    After all I am pretty sure when you mention the likes of SS, Real Climate and such like, their site visits spike enormously.
    Reddit? Never been there.

  11. leon0112 says:

    I wonder if Reddit science has 169 million views.

  12. Greg says:

    Victoria Taylor, Reddit’s director of communications, told FoxNews.com that while it was Allen’s prerogative to ban climate-change skeptics from “/r/science,” his statements “do not reflect the views of Reddit as a whole, or other science or climate-oriented subreddits.”

    Then Victoria had better decide how she wishes to see Riddit’s image as a defender of free speech and open debate in the future and whether they need the services of a self-opinionated bigot like Professor Allen.

    This is too much like soviet Russia to be funny.

  13. Rob Dawg says:

    “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”
    ―Princess Leia

  14. Janice Moore says:

    {tapping Gunga Din on the shoulder and —>>=== zoom! running away….}

    You’re It!

    #(:))

  15. This:

    “classic liberal defense mechanism: If the facts don’t support you, then close down the argument.”

    is the truest statement on Earth.

  16. Gary says:

    Sounds like somebody needs to set up a skeptics blog on Reddit. Obviously Anthony has his hands full here. This could be a great springboard for some enterprising AGW skeptic with the proper skills, time and passion. Who’ll pick up the gauntlet?

  17. Will REDDIT ban all discussion about their ban?

    And if they do, will they ban all discussion about the discussion about their ban?

    Andf if they do, will they ban ………………..

  18. Mike Maguire says:

    It just gets harder and harder to defend a position that’s wrong as time goes on.

    In the 1980′s/90′s, with global temperatures going up and climate models projecting the increase to continue……..it was a no brainer with no opposition.

    In the 2000′s, the opposition grew exponentially as the temperatures didn’t go up and more and more evidence poured in to contradict the movement……….plants grew faster, global climate models became broken…………….but alarmists still had plenty of ammo to fall back on.

    Since around 2009, the evidence has become more and more one sided to the point where global climate models are a 100% epic failure on predicting catastrophic warming, study after study has shown the benefits of CO2 to our biosphere, plants and world food production.

    In 2012, alarmists still had the Arctic ice melt as a legit real world scientific reality to fall back on.
    When the ice grew substantially in 2013, it left almost nothing but the old, easy to bust myths and rhetoric based on a theory that looks to be busted badly.

    I say, just name a CAGW statement………..any statement about catastrophic/harmful warming, extreme weather, climate change, CO2 as pollution……..whatever and I can bust it.

    I can show it’s either not a threat at all(often a benefit) or there is no evidence that its from increasing CO2. With that being the case, it’s making for tough “sledding” for alarmists to get the upper hand in any science discussion related to this.

    Now, if the media and governments would come out of their biased, ratings/agenda/money driven bubble, they might catch on.

  19. FYI, Reddit is very popular with 20-30 yearold crowd. It is ranked 80th most popular web site in the world by Alexa (vs. WUWT at about 25,000th). So while you may not have heard of it, it is in fact a big deal.

  20. DJ says:

    I went to Reddit for the first time ever, as a result of reading this post on WUWT….
    Curiously, after going to the Science section, I found this….

    http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/12/the-vast-majority-of-raw-data-from-old-scientific-studies-may-now-be-missing/?1

    Funny, isn’t it, that the very basis for the skeptic’s platform is ignored if it comes to a different field of science.

  21. DirkH says:

    Reddit is a Condé Nast subsidiary with a very low Alexa ranking. As climate change these days is a traffic killer, the climate change section is obviously not what gives them their traffic, and they can do with it as they like without jeopardizing their traffic.

    Censorship will probably not even harm their reputation as I consider them a leftist operation; Leftists were always in favor of censorship of evil right wing ideas and will even applaud the decision.

    Condé Nast are in NYC so they’re very likely an entirely leftist company. I don’t know about that, though; it would just be likely.

  22. Rob Dawg says:

    Mike Maguire says:
    “In the 1980′s/90′s, with global temperatures going up and climate models projecting the increase to continue……..it was a no brainer with no opposition.”

    —–

    More a case of skeptics erring on the side of caution and assembling the necessary data and checking their work. That takes time. In the earliest days you needed to schedule time on the department VAX to run your Hollerith card program unless you were lucky enough to have Visicalc on your IBM PC with 10Mb hard disk.

  23. DirkH says:

    M Simon says:
    December 20, 2013 at 11:34 am
    “What is Reddit?”

    A social media news aggregator. Like slashdot was for tech news, only for all news. People write in with their own news summary and link.

    When I want to have an overview over the official propaganda I use google news. Others might use Reddit.

  24. Janice Moore says:

    Here’s a little video of Nathan Allen on a typical day. Here he is, putting out a fire by sending an e mail. At least, he had the presence of mind to use a fake name.

    The {Red} It People

    (apologies the British re: the “made in Britain” gag — figured it was okay since it was a British comedian doing it… btw: why does he call “fire” “foy-yuh”?)

  25. Gunga Din says:

    Janice Moore says:
    December 20, 2013 at 11:45 am

    {tapping Gunga Din on the shoulder and —>>=== zoom! running away….}

    ==================================================================
    You can run but you can’t hide.
    (Unless your real name is “Missing Heat”.)

  26. Janice Moore says:

    Ha, HA! (@ Gunga Din) — Missing Heat cannot be found — ANYWHERE. Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa!

  27. Bob says:

    Who has heard about Reddit? Certainly, nobody I know uses it. I understand it is somewhat like Slashdot, which is nothing more than others’ opinions. It is generally worthless.

  28. Alvin says:

    Jeff is correct about their clients, and I think that is why Allen is doing that. He accepts his position as advocate for climate change indoctrination. If you perform a search for articles on “climate change deniers” you will find many hundred hits from just this past summer from left-wing blogs on how to shut down their opposition. It’s not about science, it’s about politics and they know they can control the future when they can move the young.

  29. AnonyMoose says:

    They should ban Twilight skeptics. Twilight exists, deal with it.
    They should ban heterosexuality skeptics. Heterosexuality is a fact.
    They should ban automobile skeptics. Most people support automobiles, so stop rocking the boat.
    They should ban “Han shot first” skeptics. We have the screencap and we’re not afraid to use it.

  30. Mike Jonas says:

    I would like to put in a word for the commenters on WUWT who support the mainstream position in a sensible way. There aren’t many, and they often get given a tough time (which may be why there aren’t many), but they help to test the arguments put forward and to keep everyone else honest. I congratulate Anthony for determinedly keeping WUWT open to all views. It is very much the better for it.

  31. pokerguy says:

    I’m not as sanguine as others here. This is symptomatic of the rising hysteria on the part of mostly liberal warmists as the real world evidence continues to work against them. Didn’t the L.A. Times recently stop printing skeptical letters? Even if there’s nothing formal in place, the impulse to censor is in evidence. I can probably count on one hand the number of skeptical letters I’ve seen published in the NYT’s in the last few years. When Jeff Jacoby (I think it was) dared to write a skeptical column for the liberal Boston Globe, the outcry was deafening….

    My sense is this will only get worse.

  32. Joseph Murphy says:

    Jeff in Calgary says:
    December 20, 2013 at 11:49 am
    FYI, Reddit is very popular with 20-30 yearold crowd. It is ranked 80th most popular web site in the world by Alexa (vs. WUWT at about 25,000th). So while you may not have heard of it, it is in fact a big deal.
    —————————————–
    Beat me to it! I predict this new policy won’t last long with Reddit. It does go against what they are all about. If it does stand it will not be good for Reddit. I don’t mean that in any deep way, just that how long can you sit around and talk with people who agree with you?

  33. vukcevic says:

    Never heard of it before, but I am going to have a go.

  34. Brian R says:

    I don’t know what the problem is. Reddit is doing exactly what they say they sould. They are challenging the genre that Reddit is a place for friendly thought.

  35. MattS says:

    Janice Moore,

    “Missing Heat cannot be found”

    If it could be found, it wouldn’t be missing now would it?

  36. DirkH says:

    pokerguy says:
    December 20, 2013 at 12:12 pm
    “Didn’t the L.A. Times recently stop printing skeptical letters? Even if there’s nothing formal in place, the impulse to censor is in evidence.”

    HuffPo and The Guardian’s Komment Macht Frei have been censored for ages. Or Realclimate.
    It’s SOP amongst them.

    They’re self-selecting for gullibility, that’s all. Let’em.

  37. philjourdan says:

    As the evidence mounts against it, more and more leftist organizations will follow the lead. The LA Times did so first (as far as I know).

    The internet makes book burning outmoded. So they will try to make sure no information is posted on the new medium.

  38. Steven Mosher says:

    folks need to get more creative.

    thread bomb him with idiotic pro AGW comments.
    post horrible lies about dellingpole. they wont delete those
    mess with the upvoting and down voting.
    since your readership dwarfs reddit, make them pay.

  39. Tom in Florida says:

    ““These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking,” Allen said in his article, which is posted on Grist.org. “They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong.””

    I would guess this statement is directed at this blog. Of course, I do not believe we have ever had the pleasure of Nathan Allen gracing us with his scientific expertise, unless of course he is hiding behind an alias.

  40. CaligulaJones says:

    “Jeff in Calgary says:
    December 20, 2013 at 11:49 am

    FYI, Reddit is very popular with 20-30 yearold crowd. It is ranked 80th most popular web site in the world by Alexa (vs. WUWT at about 25,000th). So while you may not have heard of it, it is in fact a big deal.”

    …to the smallest, least-read demographic in history…

    While quantity may sometimes have a quality all its own, I don’t think that’s the case here. Let’s face it, this is the same cohort that gets all its news from “The Daily Show”.

  41. Bob Greene says:

    Do I understand that you folks are skeptical about climate change? You don’t think there is ample evidence that the climate has changed, is very likely changing and is very likely to change in the future? I’ll be darned.
    I’m skeptical that the climate is or should be static and that anyone can control it.
    Allen claims to be a Ph.D. chemist. I’ve long had a fondness for guys like that. I thought, in general, most Ph. D. chemists were too bright to believe they can control the climate or thought, but I suppose there are some below the average line.

  42. Paul Westhaver says:

    It is useful to the cause of real scientific inquiry that an apparent rag web site like reddeit (I have never visited their site) would self filter itself to the fringes of credibility by inviting only contributors who agree with them. Self-filtering extremists like at reddit self-identify as incredible activists and thereby doom their small readership to bad science mutual masturbators. Yes they make each other feel good don’t they, but they are impotent and sterile.

    As for WUWT, the most popular science blog, where dialogue is open and challenging, the cause for science will prosper in the fertile interactive debate.

    Reddit is a shallow empty box where global warming activists can sneer aloud and hear their echos reflect back at them so they can feel validated.

  43. bullocky says:

    Nathan Allen’s policy reminds me of the old ‘White Australia Policy’ of yesteryear; designed to create a place where only people like himself are permitted – by decree.

  44. Frank K. says:

    Just delete Reddit already (and 99% of all the “media” out there) – they are for losers. In fact, just get out the cybersphere for a while and do something! Ride a bike. Go for a run (my favorite). Ski. Snowshoe. Play board games. In other words, just disconnect…

  45. Poptech says:

    Jeff, Alexa is a dated and effectively meaningless page rank metric. While Reddit is very popular with the 20-30 something crowd this has nothing to do with the Alexa ranking (which can be easy manipulated as Reddit is full of script kiddies). I would demonstrate with WUWT’s ranking but my comments are still being moderated so I see no reason to help out.

  46. Richard M says:

    Nathan Allen is moving from stage 1. to stage 2. over the death of his beloved AGW.

  47. Dr Burns says:

    I was banned from the Greenpeace forum some years back. I was very careful to avoid breaking any forum rules but of course the truth is disruptive.

  48. AndyG55 says:

    Is Reddit where the though who can’t understand Twitter go?

  49. timothy sorenson says:

    It appears they are using the Scientology approach to critics: attack the critic, vilify and impune.

  50. Janice Moore says:

    “Reddit is a shallow empty box where global warming activists can sneer aloud and hear their echos reflect back at them so they can feel validated.” (Paul Westhaver at 12:27pm today)

    Bore repeating — with emphasis. Exactly. (and Dirk and others with same idea).
    **********************************

    @ Steven Mosh-er — thanks for the tips. I think they’ve got this one covered, though… “thread bomb him with idiotic pro AGW comments.” #(:))

    *****************************************************
    Oh, Matt S.. I’m not THAT stupid (eye roll). Thanks for letting me know I’m viewed that way by some. Sigh.

    Say, would you like to join Gunga Din in our game of tag? (that is the context for my remark which made you think (or only confirmed your opinion, perhaps) that I am an idiot) Join in!

    @ Gunga Din –…… Janice, since her name isn’t actually Missing Heat, appears in the distance —- Gunga Din dashes after her and soon overtakes her, tapping her on the shoulder crying, “You’re It.” I may be good at hiding, but you are much swifter.

    Watch out, Matt S. — Gunga Din is now It; and he is very fast…
    #(:))

  51. henrythethird says:

    Janice Moore said (December 20, 2013 at 11:35 am)

    “…This is, as I said a couple of days ago, the loveliest Christmas gift Red It could have given to us. “Why are they banned…. ?” will get FAR more people to read WUWT and other science truth sites than would otherwise have but for the ban…”

    To this, I’ll agree. It was the total hatred for WUWT and Climate Audit seen at the other sites that brought me here.

    If people see Reddit as a social media news aggregator, then so is WUWT. Any stupid comments said at the other sites winds up here.

    We scan those sites so you don’t have to…

  52. “They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong.”

    We’ve been saying that about SkS for a while now. Maybe they’re finally starting to listen

  53. Anon says:

    Here is the original article posted at reddit, with furious comments both for and against:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1t0c9v/reddits_science_forum_banned_climate_deniers_why/

    In the article, Nathan Allen, one of the r/science moderators, explains why he banned “climate deniers” from one of reddit’s major “subreddits”, and asks, “why don’t all newspapers do the same?”

    It now emerges that Nathan Allen works for Dow Chemicals — “one of the next green giants”. Is there a conflict of interest here?

    http://i.imgur.com/3Fu71SD.png

    The posting of the article, across multiple subreddits, seemed an opportunity for alarmist zealots to beat the drum of global warming attack activism: skeptics are “deniers”; there is no scientific research which supports their “beliefs”; they engage in irrational “conspiracy theorizing”, or are shills paid by the fossil fuel industry.

    The high-profile reddit user who posted the article (and is active in many climate threads across the site) has been identified as Philip Newell, a “communications associate” employed by Climate Nexus, a “strategic communications” NGO funded by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

    Both Mr Allen and Mr Newell do not make an attempt to hide their real life identities: their usernames are their real names.

    This episode is illustrative of the continual, professional global warming PR campaign that is waged online. A Dow Chemical employee and a Rockefeller NGO worker collaborate to attack skeptics (of all varieties) as “deniers”, and encourage normalization of the censorship of AGW skepticism amongst reddit’s young, trendsetting demographic.

    This sort of thing happens every day.

  54. This Guy says:

    While one section of Reddit bans dissenting opinions(r/science), that is not representative of reddit on the whole.

    Reddit is just a big forum with where the threads are broken into specific communites called sub-reddits. For instance, reddit.com/r/climateskeptics is a decent place for people who believe that the scientific method is not dead. There are usually 1 or Wattsupwiththat articlles on the front page at any given time.

    You will most likely find skeptics in r/conservative or r/libertarian.

    If you’re looking for cute cat pictures check out r/aww.

    It’s a mixed bag that generally leans towards 20-30 yr old, male, leftist, STEM majors, but there is something for everyone.

    While the banning of dissenting opinions is bad I think the partnership with Nature is probably worse, although they go hand in hand.

  55. MikeB says:

    For those of you use Reddit (I’ve never head of it) I recommend you do just as Steve Mosher suggests; submit just pro-warming arguments which become more and more ridiculous until even the dumbest of the true believers begin to ask questions. I know that Americans do not understand satire, but as Jonathan Swift demonstrated, this can prove to be a very powerful tactic.

  56. Leslie says:

    How much more ad revenue would Redit have to lose to reverse this policy? Or perhaps advertisers already know they get very low ROI from skeptics of any kind.

  57. KevinM says:

    “I don’t mean that in any deep way, just that how long can you sit around and talk with people who agree with you?”

    Judging by WUWT threads I’ve read for four years, I’d say you can do it for a long time. :)

  58. cwon14 says:

    Changing the filibuster rules, Duck Dynasty jackboot on speech, Reddit ban (which will be modeled at many MSM outlets and has long been sought after in the leftist core of the AGW movement, LA Times has a similar policy) are all symptoms of the declining Obama power. These are the last ditch and tyrannical endgames found in many left-wing governments.

    It’s confirmed again, AGW is a totalitarian political movement with little science of substance to consider. Many skeptics pretend and enable the agenda by doing so.

  59. rogerknights says:

    Red Edit?

    Condé Nast are in NYC so they’re very likely an entirely leftist company. I don’t know about that, though; it would just be likely.

    Condé Nast owns about 20 magazines. Two or three years ago it formed an organization dedicated to spreading warmist doctrine amongst all print media, and has held conferences (IIRC) devoted to furthering this. Its own magazines, such as the Atlantic, have been in the forefront of this effort. Another of its magazines, Wired, started getting snarky about “deniers” — which led me, a-from-the-first subscriber, to let my sub lapse.
    ==========

    I’m afraid that many climate contrarian comments are as bad as this Reddit editor claims. They make me wince when I see them elsewhere on the Internet. (Some WUWT author or maybe the GWPF should compile a collection of them: “Twenty Arguments Not to Use vs. Warmists” or some such could be the title.) But if the Reddit editor wants to keep them out, he needs to be even-handed and keep out the just-as-bad-or-worse Common Crazy Claims by the CaCA Cult.

  60. An insignificant ban since you can just start your own forum if you don’t like a moderators rules. Start a new forum, maybe r/science2 and use a bot to repost all /r/science threads into your new forum.

  61. LexingtonGreen says:

    Reddit has a subreddit just for discussing Global Warming issues. And there is a subredit just for skeptics. http://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalWarming/
    http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics

  62. mjmsprt40 says:

    Reddit has had issues with moderators before, so this is nothing new. It’s Reddit being Reddit. One moderator on a sub-reddit can inflict his will on the community and there’s not a lot fellow redditors can do about it.

    Funny thing: If the moderator gets subjected to the kind of treatment he’s dishing out, he’ll be the first to scream that his First Amendment rights are getting violated.

  63. Bill Illis says:

    … “Allen went on to attack climate-change skeptics further, saying that evidence to support their position “simply does not exist” …”
    ——————–

    After moderating all those skeptic comments, you’d think he would know there is some evidence supporting the skeptic position.

    People need to have at least a modicum of objectivity after all. Does Allen say he has none?

  64. David Schofield says:

    How do you ban someone you can’t define? I’m a sceptic. I believe the climate changes. I believe man plays a (small) part. I don’t believe this is catastrophic. I believe some research should be undertaken. I don’t believe models work. Ban me?

  65. FergalR says:

    “if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?”

    Anyone who signs up for Reddit (which doesn’t even require an email address), all of their sockpuppets and throwaway accounts are automatically subscribed to a couple of dozen subreddits one of which is /r/science. To claim 4 million users is bizarre.

  66. CodeTech says:

    Any, and I do mean ANY comment at CNN that even remotely goes against the agenda is ruthlessly deleted, and the poster put on moderated status. Also, before they kick you to the curb you’re likely to get mocked by a moderator. This is what they do.

    Reddit is, in fact, very influential for that younger age group. It’s a carefully crafted channel to distribute modes of thinking into impressionable minds. They believe they have freedom and openness, but it’s not that way. I agree that the Alexa rating is likely very low relative to the number of regulars.

  67. DayHay says:

    As a fellow denier, folks posting about what they THINK Reddit is or is not while admitting they never have been on the site are no better than the pro aqw fanatics we fight everyday. We, and I use that term loosely, in pursuit of truth, can always most easily take the high road.
    Spend some time on Reddit, the AMA’s (ask me anything), TIL (today I learned), what is it like being a college age female in Saudi Arabia, I am posting for my 100 year old grandmother, as her anything, ELI5 (explain it to me like I am 5) there is some really incredible information available. So please feel free to get off your denier horses, at least when you freely admit you don’t know crap.
    There are TON of our youth all over the world on Reddit, you better get a grip on how and what they think. Obviously, the mod on the science subreddit is clearly seeing that he does not want the loyal following to be led anywhere but consensus. That should tell us something.

  68. Txomin says:

    Censorship is just about the only option left for the climateer oracles and their acolytes.

  69. rabbit says:

    On The Guardian I was trying to figure out, mostly out of curiosity, if the reddit policy differentiated between deniers, skeptics, warmists, and so on. If I went on reddit and claimed that climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing was far less than the IPCC claimed, would I get “moderated”? Where was the line drawn?

    Never got a coherent answer of course. Lots of insults, though.

  70. dp says:

    Interesting that Nathan would show up as an apartheidist at a time whdn apartheid is in the news. Makes one wonder if he was inspired by the endless rehashing of that era. It is the kind of thing that would appeal to small minds, and his actions suggest he’s so equipped.

  71. Tom G(ologist) says:

    Dirk:

    “Leftists were always in favor of censorship of evil right wing ideas and will even applaud the decision”

    Remember what good ol’ B. Franklin said: “Revolutions are only illegal in the third person, but not in the first person. THEIR revolution is illegal: OURS is not.”

  72. Philip says:

    Anyone that uses “talk radio” or “fox new” as an excuse for their behavior immediately labels themselves as a clueless progressive moron incapable of anything beyond parroting the words fed to them by their masters.

    Those words/phrases alone would persuade me to kick whoever used them out of the door without further discussion. If Reddit want to keep any scrap of legitimacy, this moderator needs to go – now.

  73. Scott says:

    Reddit is bigger than we old codgers think, I was taking about some obscure topic at the bar with some guys and a young female (25 or so) chirped in and said “oh yeah I saw that on Reddit”. I’ve never had anyone chirp in and say “oh yeah I saw that on WUWT” lol.

  74. wws says:

    I was in the comments section on some story on Disqus yesterday (was it the puffington host? I forget) Anyway, I got into an internet slap fight with David Appell, who was madly trolling the comments, trying to convince everyone that this banning was Just and Right and True.

    It was funny.

  75. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Quoted from above:

    Finally, Allen called for other news outlets to follow his example, asking “if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?”
    ——————————
    This is a very misleading claim. In the original write-up Allen starts out with the claim that Reddit has over 4 million users but uses the caveat “of which the science forum is a small part” (I’m paraphrasing him but it’s at the start of his article).

    I would hazard a guess that the science forum has a half-dozen volunteers and is a very small part of Reddit of which climate science is an even smaller part – certainly nowhere near 4 million users.

  76. David S says:

    I find it disturbing that the warmists think that we don’t have evidence to support our position. It is the warmists that are hypothesising that natural climate patterns are not as it seems. It is they who are the deniers and should be required to provide the evidence which unfortunately for them does not exist. Climate models, and hypotheses based on them is not evidence neither is fabricated consensus. The reactions of warmists to refuse to debate issues is the clearest evidence of their lack of evidence

  77. Marcos says:

    arstechnica.com has been marking skeptic posts in climate change articles as spam for a few months now and gave pretty much the same reasons as reddit. not all get marked that way but many that dont toe the AGW line do. this of course, has led to less critical posts in the articles because people are self-censoring

  78. albertalad says:

    I take the Reddit ban seriously – this is the new left strategy – shut down any dissent when it does not support their arguments. The LA Times did the same, and other major networks are extremely reluctant even acknowledging there are facts that challenge the global warming religion.

  79. Anon says:

    @Rabbit – in r/science, you could post a link to a peer-reviewed paper with a lower ECS estimate, but it would likely be buried (by downvotes) and one (or several) of a regular crew of alarmist commenters would mock, disparage, and simplistically contradict, depending on how you have contextualized the research. But as it would never rise in the posts list (which are sorted based on time, but mostly votes) there would be very little discussion. In some ways, it’s the same as the “bury brigades” that were partially responsible for Digg’s loss of prestige. But it is also the echo-chamber effect of the reddit “hivemind”.

    The problem is not so much one of a formal banning policy, as continual social censorship, and an ongoing campaign (both organized and disorganized) to attack and misrepresent the skeptical perspective on IPCC climate science/politics, while pumping the CAGW message. Despite the general irrelevance of much of reddit, this demographic (young, culturally influential) is a prime target for the alarmist PR machine.

    One of the most frequent climate-related posters/commenters is user ‘pnewell’… he even has a special icon next to his name in r/science, ostensibly legitimizing his credentials as a high-profile member of that “subreddit”, and a scientific authority, of sorts. He is also the user who posted Nathan Allen’s article across reddit (perhaps not unusual, as he often posts 40+ links per day.) It turns out this is Philip Newell, a “communications associate” at Climate Nexus, a “strategic communications” NGO funded by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

    One of their stated goals is to attempt to connect extreme weather events with AGW. Look at this page, and explore the rest of their site:

    ————
    http://climatenexus.org/whatwedo/our-work/

    Idea

    Superstorm Sandy approached the mid-Atlantic on Oct 26, 2012. Polling indicates that making connections to extreme weather helps people to understand the significance of climate change and its associated impacts. In line with this research, Climate Nexus identified the storm as a potential messaging focus.

    Action

    Climate Nexus distributed background information on the hurricane and its relationship to climate change to hundreds of environmental reporters, editorial writers, op-ed page editors and meteorologists. During the storm and its aftermath, we put journalists in contact with our expert partners Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, Dr. Anthony Lesierowitz, Dr. Jenifer Francis and Dr. Jeff Masters. Our efforts helped secured dozens of interviews for these experts on the storm and climate change, which generated hundreds of stories in the mainstream media.

    From the background information we developed messaging guidelines, which we presented at a Climate Access briefing with over 100 participants. The guidelines were also shared with select congressional staff as well as with the green community. Representative Ed Markey used it to prepare for his appearance on Hardball, and Media Matters’ booking staff used it to prepare other guests appearing on cable news. Environmental organizations found it helpful in preparing their own talking points, media materials and blog posts.

    Finally, Climate Nexus implemented the messages directly in content distributed via our own social media networks.
    ———–

  80. Berényi Péter says:

    Ah! Helmut – you want the German classes.

  81. Steve from Rockwood says:

    I stand corrected. The reddit /r/science forum does have 4 million users. Please disregard my earlier post. Must work on my reading comprehension.

  82. Graham of Sydney says:

    ‘Victoria Taylor…told FoxNews.com that…Allen’s…statements “do not reflect the views of Reddit as a whole…”‘
    Yet Reddit goes along with it anyway? Taylor needs a reality check.

  83. Jim G says:

    Delingpole told FoxNews.com, arguing that Allen’s tactic is part of a “classic liberal defense mechanism: If the facts don’t support you, then close down the argument.”

    That is a bullseye. Few here deny changing climate in any event. We merely argue with the proposed causal variables for that change and faulty predictions of past, present and future climate and expectations of same. Better not to emulate A&E ala Duck Dynasty

  84. Peter Melia says:

    Here is an extract from an article by Nathan Allen, in “Grist” in which he explains, or defends his action.
    My question is :-
    What is the size of the group the ” 97% of climate scientists” belong to?
    Quote
    The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.
    Unquote
    The Grist article is worth reading, I like the head-in-the-sand picture at the top, it exemplifies Grist’s moderate and civilised approach to scientific discussion.

  85. Mike Maguire says:

    Jeff in Calgary says:
    FYI, Reddit is very popular with 20-30 year old crowd.

    Jeff,
    There is a sad truth related to this. Our youngest generation has been completely brainwashed by design on this topic. My 2nd grade grand daughters science book(not just teacher….book) had a chapter on humans negative impact on our planet. It stated damages from global warming and the changing climate from carbon dioxide coming from power plants and cars.

    The junior high science teachers in this district are friends(I’m the chess coach at that school and 3 others). We used to have discussions about this years ago when they wanted my opinion(as a meteorologist). I found out then they were teaching the opposite of my view, pushing the alarmism. Now they will NEVER bring the subject up though I enjoy talking with them every Wednesday about science.

    At one of our local universities(University of Southern Indiana), few years back 5 science professors(none in a field related to this) combined to write a response to an article I wrote and was printed in our paper. They did their best to trash me without providing 1 iota of evidence that I was wrong……………….so our schools of higher education are completing the junk science brainwash that starts in 2nd grade.

    Once you get your college diploma, if you’ve taken an environmental science or related class, you are also indoctrinated into the global warming/climate change religion.

    The first generation to go completely thru the school sponsored brainwash programming from start to finish is now in that 20-30 year old age bracket.
    Their brains are incapable of seeing the truth. They process information based on what was taught to them and stored in their brains as knowledge/fact/truth during the 15 years they spent in school.

    It would be like somebody stating the sun revolves around the earth to them. From an observer on the surface of earth that knows nothing about this relationship, that might make sense. Once we are taught the earth revolved around the sun and store that knowledge in our brain, we process all new information related to that in a different way……….and can understand much more and build upon that huge assumption that we were taught…….which just reinforces the original fact.

    When our young people learn that CO2 is pollution and is causing global warming and climate change, it gets stored as knowledge in their brains. Then, its a piece of cake to build on that foundation. What supports what they now think they know…………reinforces it. What contradicts it……………gets rejected.

    Us that never had the brainwash can’t understand why the brainwashed can’t see what looks obvious…………….because our brains are capable of seeing things that their brains reject.

    To them, our position really appears as akin to stating the sun revolves around the earth!

  86. E.M.Smith says:

    Calling sceptics “true believers” is such a hoot. True unbelievers perhaps… but then that would show AGW to be a religion and “Global Warming” tax to be their jihad…

  87. Anon says:

    @Steve – r/science has 4m user accounts subscribed. But many of those are dormant and/or multiple accounts. As a default subreddit new users are automatically subscribed.

  88. Tom J says:

    ‘Victoria Taylor, Reddit’s director of communications, told FoxNews.com that while it was Allen’s prerogative to ban climate-change skeptics from “/r/science,” his statements “do not reflect the views of Reddit as a whole, or other science or climate-oriented subreddits.”’

    That must be Victoria’s Secret.

  89. cwon14 says:

    Many technical and scientific skeptics, in particular, are reticent in pointing out the obvious political synergy of academia, media and government interests. It boarders on idiocy at times.

    It’s sad I admit but the political I.D. of any advocacy science that is so testimonial in nature should include political disclosures. It’s remarkable ineptitude over generations now that so many comfortable academics and critics of AGW duck the topic. Skeptics were routinely purged by politically motivated activist leadership (leftists) for decades in many science associations. The “consensus” itself would be fully exposed as like minded in world views (statist) but skeptics live with a civility and customs of another time. That’s how they got pushed out at the academic and peer review level in the first place. The vindictive political undercurrent of AGW is often minimized for the sake of spaghetti charts and pointless chivalry to a fundamentally dishonest science proposition; “it’s about science”, which of course is nonsense. There was the natural weight of numbers you would expect in any “Green” science field and the usual temperament of activists driving the monopoly but there is also the reality of tortured skeptics who often share similar politics with AGW advocates and their weak rebuttal to the actual AGW undercurrent themes. The elephant is the room of raw hate politics is beneath many skeptics mentioning. While I fault the core of the AGW activists I also fault the weak minded skeptical community for their mushy indifference to the core politics driving alarmists to success.

    Peer review all but implies the consensus cartel to the tool making the call at Reddit. People go quietly on academic, government and media totalitarianism and these are the results. It will be somewhat contained by the image concerns going into next years elections but will intensify in 2015. America is a hair from Banana Republic status.

  90. TobiasN says:

    A couple of weeks ago Reddit (or the science subforum) cut a deal with the Nature, the journal.
    http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1s6410/subreddit_announcement_nature_partnership_with/

    It would not shock me if it turned out Nature editors said something like “yes will participate a bit in the threads, but no way if you allow those pesky denialists”.

    Just speculation.

    btw Reddit has a subforum http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/ which I guess you could call the skeptics ghetto/designated free speech area. It has 5000 subscribers, including myself.

  91. Steven Mosher says:

    MikeB says:
    December 20, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    For those of you use Reddit (I’ve never head of it) I recommend you do just as Steve Mosher suggests; submit just pro-warming arguments which become more and more ridiculous until even the dumbest of the true believers begin to ask questions. I know that Americans do not understand satire, but as Jonathan Swift demonstrated, this can prove to be a very powerful tactic.

    ############

    yup.

  92. Anon says:

    (Comment was caught in the spam filter (please delete orginal, admin) so I’ll remove the link and repost my reply to Rabbit, who asked where the line is drawn and whether he could post on climate sensitivity in r/science.)

    @Rabbit – in r/science, you could post a link to a peer-reviewed paper with a lower ECS estimate, but it would likely be buried (by downvotes) and one (or several) of a regular crew of alarmist commenters would mock, disparage, and simplistically contradict, depending on how you have contextualized the research. But as it would never rise in the posts list (which are sorted based on time, but mostly votes) there would be very little discussion. In some ways, it’s the same as the “bury brigades” that were partially responsible for Digg’s loss of prestige. But it is also the echo-chamber effect of the reddit “hivemind”.

    The problem is not so much one of a formal banning policy, as continual social censorship, and an ongoing campaign (both organized and disorganized) to attack and misrepresent the skeptical perspective on IPCC climate science/politics, while pumping the CAGW message. Despite the general irrelevance of much of reddit, this demographic (young, culturally influential) is a prime target for the alarmist PR machine.

    One of the most frequent climate-related posters/commenters is user ‘pnewell’… he even has a special icon next to his name in r/science, ostensibly legitimizing his credentials as a high-profile member of that “subreddit”, and a scientific authority, of sorts. He is also the user who posted Nathan Allen’s article across reddit (perhaps not unusual, as he often posts 40+ links per day.) It turns out this is Philip Newell, a “communications associate” at Climate Nexus, a “strategic communications” NGO funded by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

    One of their stated goals is to attempt to connect extreme weather events with AGW. Look at this page, and explore the rest of their site. (Search “Climate Nexus what we do”)

    ————

    Idea

    Superstorm Sandy approached the mid-Atlantic on Oct 26, 2012. Polling indicates that making connections to extreme weather helps people to understand the significance of climate change and its associated impacts. In line with this research, Climate Nexus identified the storm as a potential messaging focus.

    Action

    Climate Nexus distributed background information on the hurricane and its relationship to climate change to hundreds of environmental reporters, editorial writers, op-ed page editors and meteorologists. During the storm and its aftermath, we put journalists in contact with our expert partners Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, Dr. Anthony Lesierowitz, Dr. Jenifer Francis and Dr. Jeff Masters. Our efforts helped secured dozens of interviews for these experts on the storm and climate change, which generated hundreds of stories in the mainstream media.

    From the background information we developed messaging guidelines, which we presented at a Climate Access briefing with over 100 participants. The guidelines were also shared with select congressional staff as well as with the green community. Representative Ed Markey used it to prepare for his appearance on Hardball, and Media Matters’ booking staff used it to prepare other guests appearing on cable news. Environmental organizations found it helpful in preparing their own talking points, media materials and blog posts.

    Finally, Climate Nexus implemented the messages directly in content distributed via our own social media networks.
    —–

  93. Hamish McCallum says:

    Janice Moore 11:57am 20 December
    ‘why does he call “fire” “foy-yuh”?’

    OT I know – apologies – but she did ask!

    Thanks for the great clip. His mangled nasal tone (reminiscent of Croydon and similar places immediately south or west of London) is universally recognised in Britain as the sound of Aspergic techies & petty officialdom. There was another splendid sit-com example (more nasal, less mangled, MUCH more self-important) – Gordon Brittas (manager of a city-run leisure centre in “The Brittas Empire”).

  94. Martin A says:

    M Simon says:
    December 20, 2013 at 11:34 am

    What is Reddit?

    I think it’s the noise made by a frog.

  95. dbstealey says:

    Allen is engaging in censorship of opinion, pure and simple. If the following comment isn’t psychological projection, then nothing is:

    “These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking,” Allen said…

    Censor Allen is describing himself exactly, isn’t he?

    TobiasN, I suggest that you spend your time on productive blogs. Tell Reddit to go pound sand. They are just corralling you into a like-minded group of head nodders, where you can do no damage to their completely falsified climate alarmist beliefs. Really, you are not accomplishing anything there, it is a complete waste of your time. Tell them you’re leaving, and why: censorship of opposing beliefs is antiethical to Western thought and culture. Allen is acting like a North Korean dictator.

    If a conjecture such as catastrophic AGW, or any scientific hypothesis cannot be defended except by censoring different points of view, then it is bankrupt. The cAGW conjecture has been destroyed, as the real world is making clear to everyone.

    The basic claim of the climate alarmist crowd has always been that a rise in “carbon” will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. <—That is their conjecture in a nutshell. Everything else is just anti-science nonsense and verbal tap-dancing.

    As we can all see, CO2 has been steadily rising… but global temperatures have been flat to declining. There is no way around this: the CO2=cAGW conjecture has been completely debunked by Planet Earth. Mr Allen is just being a pipsqueak censor. Don’t give his site any oxygen by clicking on it. The real world has decisively proven that he is wrong. Censorship is the only tactic he has left.

  96. catweazle666 says:

    What’s a Reddit?

  97. John Greenfraud says:

    Do they also ban peer-reviewed scientific papers that do not agree with their pet theory? Perhaps the offending moderator can oversee the book burning with a prayer – or perform a sacrifice to Gaia – to sanctify the event. Just like Duck Dynasty, when you mess with people’s religious beliefs, they do crazy things. Censorship is the only way this debate can possibly be won by their side …. and they know it.

  98. charles nelson says:

    Reddit Science Section, now there’s a hallowed and venerable institution.
    A veritable crucible of incandescent scientific thinking.

  99. TobiasN says:

    dbstealey

    “They are just putting you into a like-minded group of head nodders, where you can do no damage to their completely flawed climate alarmist beliefs. ”

    This is marginally insulting. It assumes I don’t know what I am doing.

    In reality, no one does this. You misunderstand the structure of Reddit. No CAGWers go to the climateskeptics subforum. None of the posts there get enough upvotes to make it to their personal page.

  100. sean says:

    Nathan Allen — yet another eco-fascist junk scientist who projects his own cognitive bias on others.

  101. vukcevic says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    December 20, 2013 at 12:24 pm
    folks need to get more creative.
    thread bomb him with idiotic pro AGW comments.

    no need, just link to this graph:
    http://www.scilogs.de/klimalounge/files/MRIscenario1.png
    that will frighten the hell out of their great grandchildren.

  102. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    “The greenies — and their many useful idiots in the liberal media — are terrified of open debate on climate-change because the real world evidence long ago parted company with their scientifically threadbare theory,” Delingpole told FoxNews.com, arguing that Allen’s tactic is part of a “classic liberal defense mechanism: If the facts don’t support you, then close down the argument.”

    William: The discussion of AGW is banned at multiple scientific forums. The problem is observations and analysis does not support – there are at least five fundamental paradoxes – the extreme AGW hypothesis. The majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. Ignoring reality and banning discussion of reality does not change reality. The principal purpose of science is to discuss and resolve paradoxes.

    The following is an example: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2520887

    “PF (William: Physics Forums) is announcing its regrettable decision to ban all topics of global warming and climate change indefinitely. At this time we are unable to effectively moderate on the issue of climate change and global warming. We hope this ban will be temporary as we search for experts in the proper fields to assist us.

    This ban will go into effect Monday Jan 11th. (William: January, 2010) Members who are currently involved in global warming and or climate change threads, have until then to wrap up discussions. On Monday such threads will be locked.

    Please note this is an issue the staff has been working on for the past couple of years and we do not take this action lightly. We have explored and tried many solutions. This was our last resort.”

  103. Alan Robertson says:

    Goebbels would have been proud of Nathan Allen, but Victoria Taylor gets special mention, for decrying Allen’s tactics while keeping them in force.

  104. cwon14 says:

    What’s more offensive is that policy goes through the usual echo chamber of, The Nation, Huffington Post, New Republic making it’s way to the NYTimes and Washington Post where the “merits” will be seriously reviewed. If it doesn’t draw enough hostility it will follow the lead of the LA Times which announced a similar policy several months back and implement it.

    AGW was and is totalitarian in purpose as are many left-wing inclinations. What was fringe in the Democratic Party is now the mainstream.

  105. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Who read Reddit?

  106. Steve from Rockwood says:

    The Reddit science section includes physics, astronomy, chemistry, nano-science, biology, animal science, environment, medicine, cancer, neuroscience, psychology, social sciences, anthropology, computer science, mathematics, engineering, geology and paleontology.

    All of these topics are moderated by only 6 people? Wow! That’s one person for every 3 sections. They could run Planet Earth with a background like that.

    BTW climate science is a sub-section of environment with typically 10-20 comments per posting half of which are idle chatter. Not very informative for alarmists or deniers.

    A Reddit post on this November being the warmest ever recorded led to this comment by Olseadog … “It is rather ironic that the most blue section on the NOAA map [showing colder temperatures] is the southern US which has the highest proportion of climate change naysayers than anywhere else in the world.” … which is ironic because it probably has one of the highest density of temperature stations as well.

  107. Spotted Reptile says:

    “Allen went on to attack climate-change skeptics further, saying that evidence to support their position “simply does not exist” …”

    So if the evidence does not exist, why are all these AGW sites so threatened and enraged by the arguments of the opposition? If the science is 97% settled or whatever, then surely in the utmost confidence of their position, they would allow ‘sceptics’ to comment ad infinitum and make fools of themselves over and over.

    But they don’t. They scream, ban, threaten, and sue. Which only leads to the conclusion that they are afraid the truth will leak out and undermine their cause. But you can’t use reason with these zealots. Why they are attracted to these causes in the first place, to swim against the stream draws lots of attention to an otherwise unnoticed little creature.

  108. cynical_scientist says:

    Sombody sic the 4chan anons on them. Fight foy-ah with foy-ah.

  109. Anon says:

    Oh, and have you heard? The only way to stop catastrophic global warming may be through violent revolution:

    http://qz.com/154196/the-only-way-to-stop-climate-change-now-may-be-revolution/

  110. dbstealey says:

    TobiasN, I certainly didn’t mean to be insulting. My apologies if that’s what it sounded like.

    I admit that I don’t know how Reddit operates. But any blog that deletes a point of view wholesale is not a blog that should be supported. These blogs – all of them – get their support in one way: internet traffic. Eyeballs, in the parlance.

    I hope you see what they’re doing: corraling scientific skeptics into their own separate enclosure. Since as you note, CAGWers do not go to that page, Reddit is [effectively] making it a group of head-nodders.

    Who wants that? We learn a lot from the climate alarmists who comment here. Sometimes they raise good points. But their central belief, their central prediction, has always been that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. They have decisively lost that debate, as Planet Earth clearly demonstrates every month.

    Stand-up people admit it when they are wrong. That is what’s so frustrating with blogs like Reddit: they are provably wrong, but instead of acknowledging that indisputable fact, instead they resort to censorship. Feeding their traffic only supports them. I, for one, will not do it.

  111. Hot under the collar says:

    ‘Newtruth’ according to Reddit moderators is the new Newspeak.

  112. John Spencer says:

    “When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the
    climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not
    reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed
    more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.”

    A left wing site with a warmist believer running the environment
    board claims the skeptics are the bad guys and blocks them. What a shock.

    And this warmist preacher Nathan Allen even calls skeptics the
    pejorative term “denier posters”.

    When you can’t question an idea it’s a religion.
    When its followers don’t question their idea it’s a religion.
    When its leaders won’t allow their idea to be questioned
    it’s a religion. This proves the closed mind, dogmatic,
    Global Warming cult is a religion.

    So in effect there can be no fair discussion on Global Warming when the moderator has taken such a firm bias stance on one side. Banning others for being non-believers belongs in medieval religion. Something you would expect the scientific mind to be fully aware of. I haven’t been on this reddit board but experience tells me, with this sort of bias, that the shoe is on the other foot. I’ve seen years of very abusive warmers. So I’m not going to countenance this abuse smokescreen, especially as the moderator kicks off by provoking folk with such pejorative language himself.

    I’m sure when there’s no skeptics for warmists to abuse and provoke matters on reddit, things should calm down and the warmists can quite happily preach to the converted.

  113. Anon says:

    @dbstealey: “Since as you note, CAGWers do not go to that page”

    No, alarmists troll r/climateskeptics continually. But occasionally there are good discussions. There are a fairly wide range of skeptical perspectives represented there, too.

  114. Jimbo says:

    Isn’t it ironic that the press / media which fights for its freedom of speech suppresses it. Reddit and the Guardian are as bad as each other, I have suffered over a dozen bans at the Guardian climate section. All I do is present the peer reviewed evidence, ask for evidence, point out that the weather is not the same as climate and so on.

    Now who is this Nathan Allen PHD in chemistry and climate? Here is is ranting and raving.

    ….On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by “Big Green.” On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by “Big Oil.”….
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-allen/reddits-science-forum-ban_b_4455825.html

    I feel embarrassed for him. I don’t want to show him climate change advocates covered in oil money, it’s just too easy now. LOL. CRU and Shell / BP 1970s? Dana of Guardian? Mann’s university and Koch? Pachauri and ye olde Glorioil? Gore and Occidental? Big green groups investments in fossil fuels? Like I said the hypocrisy goes on and on.

    Mr. Allen, if you are reading this, please take a look at the mote in your own eye first. You are a disgrace and I don’t know what IDIOT gave you a PHD, you are an utter and absolute disgrace to science.

    You talk about sceptics ignoring the science. It is you who ignores the OBSERVATIONS compared to the science. I have a theory that predicts that all ducks are white. Tomorrow someone captures a black duck. Game over. See surface temperature standstill, 17 years and Santer et. al.

  115. rabbit says:

    Anon:

    Thank you for that detailed reply. I am amazed at how overt Climate Nexus is at its goal of “managing” the media. We can only be grateful that they’re doing a crappy job of it.

    It sounds like reddit/science already has an effective mechanism for keeping everyone on message. Makes me wonder why they bothered banning “denier” posts. All it did was damage their reputation.

    And it makes me wonder why similar “user-rated” sites such as Slashdot have a healthy community of climate skeptics who do not seem at all suppressed. Perhaps it’s because the Slashdot community is more technically savy than reddit/science overall.

  116. Jimbo says:

    Sooooooo many ‘scientists’ have nailed their flag to the mast over CAGW. If [when] it’s shown to be exaggerated what will these alleged ‘scientists’ do? Will they ever be taken seriously again? [Children won't know what snow is, ice free Arctic in 2013 et al. ]

  117. Frank K. says:

    C’mon people…you do NOT need Reddit!! Just dump it already… It’s a waste of your precious time.

  118. WillR says:

    I never heard of these guys before the debate here.

    Don’t need to hear of them again either.

  119. Jimbo says:

    It’s really funny looking at Mr. Allen’s page. When you go to make a comment they give you more hurdles. It must feel good preaching to the choir. Well done Mr. Allen ye olde company chemist and part time atmospheric scientist. You have opened my mind and I am now a firm believer in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Runaway Global Warming. We must act now!!!!

    See how easy it is? Ban people and they will agree with you. Well done Mr. Allen you utter genius. You deserve an ‘Ignobel’ Prize.

  120. Jimbo says:

    Here is a comment on Mr. Allen’s page. We really do have a long, hard struggle. I hope this man will one day be at peace with the truth.

    Extra Huffington (Fietser)
    115 Fans · we need nature, but nature doesn’t need us
    It’s been ages since I’ve seen a good argument from a climate denier. Just put that against the overwhelming evidence that scientists have put up and it’s hard to understand why they persist either for egotistical reasons. This fight against global warming is much bigger than any previous war we’ve ever had. And it’s one we’re about to loose if we don’t do something quickly. These deniers are costing us precious time, time we can’t afford to loose. If for the sake of speeding up the discussion how to win this battle, then yes censoring these deniers is something I don’t have a problem with!
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-allen/reddits-science-forum-ban_b_4455825.html

    He obviously does not get out much. I feel his pain and loss (financial) for the says:

    “These deniers are costing us precious time, time we can’t afford to loose…”

    Chances are this idiot and fool has carbon investments somewhere and he feels he is about to lose his shirt. Follow the money >>>>>>

  121. Jeef says:

    It’s attitudes like Allen’s that make “get back to reddit” a popular insult on other forum-based websites. A haven for the small-minded and easily-led.

  122. Jimbo says:

    Sorry,
    IF THE SCIENCE IS ON YOUR SIDE, WHY DO YOU NEED TO BAN PEOPLE? Just point at the ‘science’ and your case is shut. Unfortunately they can’t do this simple act. Why not?????? LOL.

  123. MarkG says:

    Sadly, this is nothing new; many left-leaning sites will ban you for questioning ‘climate change’. I was banned from a writer’s site just for pointing out that the supposed Heartland memo was a fake after someone else posted excerpts from it as though they were real. I think a permanent ban took about five minutes and three posts.

    One of the things you rapidly learn is that those who most adamantly shout ‘it’s all the climate’s fault!’ on such forums are generally those who know the least about it.

  124. Steve Oregon says:

    Homewood said. “And if they do, will they ban all discussion about the discussion about their ban?”

    To ban is to be banned and then to ban again till banning itself is banned by the banners due to over banning.
    How much banning could a banner ban if a banner could ban banning.

    Banning is like sex. You can never have enough of it until you don’t want it any more at all.
    Hmmm?

  125. “These people were true believers” I thought I was a “denier” now I am a “true believer”?

  126. Jimbo says:

    Mr. Allen says that there is no time to lose. He sounds concerned for humanity and maybe his kids, if he has any. Has Mr. Allen ever THOUGHT that sceptics are also human beings with kids???? Who elevated him to care more about my kids than him????

    I see a bright and wonderful future for my children as we consume our fossil fuels. Co2 output is a win win situation, more greening, better crops, lower winter heating bills et. al. There is a lack of evidence of extreme climate or weather caused by man-made greenhouse gases since 1850 (end of LIA). There should be no alarm over the trace rise of the trace gas CO2. The Arctic is picking up, Antarctica has gone wild with sea ice, global sea ice is bang on average, nothing to worry about, except we must raise our co2 levels.
    Ref: green.

  127. Noelene says:

    Jeff in Calgary
    Is that how old the users are?I thought most were in their teens judging by the content posted on there.lots of pics of cute animals though.

  128. Paul Hanlon says:

    I was a long time poster on reddit. At that time there was only the environment subreddit, populated by true believers and sock puppets. It was a miserable experience. Comments disappearing, posting up an article and finding it with a score of -5 so it never got seen by anyone, having every comment down-voted, often they would just go to my profile and downvote every article and comment they saw there, which saved them having to look in individual articles to see if I posted. I only stayed as long as I did to wind them up. After Climategate I never bothered to post there again, and my advice to anyone thinking of visiting is “just say no” :-). A content free waste of time.

  129. Boycotting news media works. I stopped watching and listening to Canada’s national network, the CBC a while back. I often get surveys asking why I don’t watch/listen and I simply say they are too biased left and following a predictable mantra that influences their commentary and even their programming … so I don’t listen or watch that network hardly at all anymore. And they slowly are noticing that only the leftists listen to them any more, which influences their programming further and further alienates those of us with a brain in in the middle of the political spectrum. I wonder if they will survive the spiralling whirlpool?

  130. Jeff Alberts says:

    cwon14 says:
    December 20, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    …Duck Dynasty jackboot on speech…

    Riiight. Just because some self-described white trash didn’t realize you have to deal with the consequences of your free speech, which can include losing your primo gig on an idiotic program, doesn’t mean his “free speech” is being silenced. It just means a lot of people don’t agree with his moronic views.

  131. William Astley says:

    The warmists appear to be ignorant concerning the paleoclimatic record. There are cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. Each and every time in the past the planet has cooled when the solar magnetic cycle has went into a deep minimum. The current slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle is the fastest reduction in 10,000 years.

    The warmists need to develop an alternative strategy/response (plan B, planet is cooling, 97% of climate scientists were absolutely incorrect, humanity must address the global cooling problem, there will be a significant reduction in food production due to global cooling and so on.) to address global cooling, as opposed to banning the discussion of observations concerning global cooling and analysis that supports the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes as opposed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. As the planet starts to cool the public will notice the cooling and will expect an explanation for the cooling/massive snowfall events, blizzards, and crop failures due to early and late frosts. Planetary cooling will be front page news. Time magazine’s issue of the year will be global cooling: ‘The Next Ice Age?’ Dec 16th, 2013 Global Sea Ice Highest was the highest for 25 Years (Antarctic sea ice has set a two sigma record above average for every month in 2013).

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/dec-16th-global-sea-ice-highest-for-25-years/
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

    The total solar irradiation has dropped by 1.5/m^2 as compared to past solar magnetic cycles.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1970
    “It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe. The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.

    Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions. I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns. According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.

    Since then the sun has been getting quieter. By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

    He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.”

  132. Frank K. says:

    Wayne Delbeke says:
    December 20, 2013 at 7:04 pm

    “Boycotting news media works.”

    Agreed! Just look at CNN…

  133. MrX says:

    Reddit is good for cat pictures mostly. I’ve tried to post a few times in their climate change forum, but it’s a complete circlejerk. There’s no attempt to even look at logic or existing papers. Many times I’m asked to prove my assertions and I give a list of papers and then I get no replies, just tons of downvotes.

    Also, they adamantly refuse the acknowledge that the pause exists. It’s a little funny… yet sad.

    (Note: For the record, it is only a “pause” if global warming resumes. As of 17 years ago, global warming has stopped. ~mod)

  134. talldave2 says:

    Jeff Alberts says:

    The issue has less to do with his views than who he is. After all, he didn’t advocate discrimination against anyone, just gave his religious opinion on sexual morality. It’s hard to imagine this furor happening if he were a nonwhite Muslim, even though Islam is actively murdering people for being homosexual as official doctrine (Qom in particular). The real driver here is oikophobia.

    A&E could have chosen to ignore the remarks, but they decided to make an issue out of it. That’s their free speech right. The A&E boycott movement, which is already at 1.6M, is also free speech.

    The DD guys can pack up and take their extremely successful “primo gig” somewhere else that wants the top-rated cable show ever.

  135. Jeff Alberts says:

    talldave2 says:
    December 20, 2013 at 8:46 pm

    You’re right, that was my point. Someone said his free speech was being suppressed, it wasn’t, it was just being exposed to the light of day. Bringing anyone else into the picture is simply a strawman.

  136. Chad Wozniak says:

    @dbstealey -

    Well said – the only answer the AGW crowd has to contrary evidence is censorship Which, of course, is proof that it is a totalitarian ideology, with little ultimately to do with climate, and everything to do with, inter alia, transferring wealth from poorer (ordinary folk) to richer (the elite which claims to know better what is right for us than we do).

  137. knr says:

    Any one claiming to be scientists that regards the infamous 97% claim to be valid is in fact both not practising science nor any-type of scientists worth a dam. Unless they believe there are in fact ‘only ‘ 77 climate ‘scientists’ in the world.

  138. David Harrington says:

    Any comments I make on the Guardian, regardless of their veracity or accuracy, are “pre moderated”; in effect they are censored as none ever get published.

    Net result? I don’t visit or engage on the Guardian website, I leave them to wallow in their delusions.

  139. Throgmorton says:

    @Gary
    The ban is does not cover the whole reddit site.

    There is a sub-forum on reddit where skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming can post articles and discuss news and science:
    http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/

    WUWT articles are popular there.

  140. Tim Groves says:

    They are wallowing at a thread on the Reddit issue at CIF today with over 1,400 comments so far. I just made a rather spirited comment that I don’t trust the mods there not to moderate, so if it’s not out of place I’ll copy it here.

    Alarmist:
    Show us your data or any source that credibly refutes the IPCC position and we will listen.

    My reply:
    No, people like you won’t listen. You never have in all the years I’ve been reading the comments at CIF. You warmists are afraid to discuss the science or even to look at evidence that goes against your alarmist fantasy. You defend yourself against reality by constantly making personal attacks on the messengers, raising quibbles about any item of data they present, refusing to follow logic where it leads or to used joined-up thinking. Many of you even relish the thought of shutting down all dissent like the totalitarian thugs you really are. You are a disgrace to your intelligence and your education. It was wasted on you. You have gone mad in a herd, and you will only recover your senses one by one as the climate stubbornly refuses to get any warmer in the coming years. And thankfully by 2030, you will be as close to extinction as flat-earthers, steady-staters and people who subscribe to the cosmology of Immanuel Veilokovsky.

  141. DirkH says:

    Jeff Alberts says:
    December 20, 2013 at 7:11 pm
    “Riiight. Just because some self-described white trash didn’t realize you have to deal with the consequences of your free speech, which can include losing your primo gig on an idiotic program, doesn’t mean his “free speech” is being silenced. It just means a lot of people don’t agree with his moronic views.”

    Wait; one homosexual activist starts an outrage campaign; then one boss at that network makes a decision, and that’s lots of people for you. For me that’s two people.

    Could even be that it was a marketing stunt from the start, like the Amazon drone.

  142. This just follows a long line of alarmist sites that have a ban on skeptics. Some announce it, others don’t.

    Very seldom do you see alarmist comments on sites where they don’t control the moderation.

  143. DirkH says:

    rabbit says:
    December 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    “And it makes me wonder why similar “user-rated” sites such as Slashdot have a healthy community of climate skeptics who do not seem at all suppressed. Perhaps it’s because the Slashdot community is more technically savy than reddit/science overall.”

    Well if that is so now, then it took slashdot AGES to get there; a few years back they were hysterically warmist and shouting down any skeptic. They are herd animals at slashdot. Probably one of their leaders has ordered to switch to skepticism some time back.

  144. michael hart says:

    Nathan Allen just doesn’t geddit.

  145. LloydB says:

    This is old news. Skeptics have been effectively banned from /r/science for months. Originally they were just heavy handed mods. Ironically they’d often delete the best supported, devastating arguments against AGW, leaving behind rants to help create the illusion that skeptics had nothing relevant to say. They enacted secret rules to delete posts, like making it a no-no to discuss the warming hiatus unless the article was specifically about that (even if the article mentioned required an assumption of warming it was off limits to discuss). And eventually they started adding people to the subreddit’s filters. The skeptics received no notification and couldn’t even tell that their posts were removed unless they logged off.

    But this is good. This shows them for what they are. This will only make real scientists realize how much political forces have twisted and perverted the “science”.

  146. Allen – another fascist [no free speech, no free will, join the communal] with a Piled on High and Deep degree. Anyone else sick of little fascists with philosophy degrees telling the rest of us that they know ‘all’ and we know ‘nothing’. There is more science in Alice in Wonderland than in AGW. Reddit is for liberal rednecks who just don’t get it.

  147. RockyRoad says:

    I strongly disagree with Mosher–his is certainly the wrong approach!

    Instead, jump on Reddit and agree with their AGW meme–then list all the benefits CO2 provides, like making trees grow 30% faster than they were 50 years ago; that it contributes ~15% to world-wide foodstuff production, and that by sequestering (in the atmosphere) all that life-giving gas from fossil fuel combustion, it is readily available to the biosphere (It isn’t burried in some landfill somewhere, never to be seen again).

    Emphasize that man is part of the biosphere.

    Agree with AGW–just don’t put a number to man’s contribution (which they can’t do anyway)–and concentrate on the tremendous benefits we get from higher CO2 levels.

    It will make their heads explode–and get rid of people that only see the dark side to everything.

    And if they still disagree, they obviously consider population reduction as one of their target objectives.

  148. eco-geek says:

    Well I’ve banned Reddit…..

    No change there then.

  149. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    I have noted:
    First it was global warming.
    Second it was climate change
    The third step down has already arrived — the weirding of weather
    or as I prefer to cal it — weather change.

    So the reality is that WEATHER CHANGE is there new talking point.
    It is beyond satire.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  150. celestiasfalling says:

    I am an avid user of Reddit. AMA (Ask Me Anything).

  151. Tom Laws says:

    A year ago, even though the seemingly impossible, Neutrinos appeared to exceed the speed of light, we didn’t hear a chorus of dissenters decrying the results. We didn’t have presidents proclaiming “The science is it!”. Instead we did the logical, see if the results were repeatable, verifiable and explainable. Why isn’t such an obvious response coming from those that proclaim to be open minded scientists when it comes to a far more debatable thing as the science of the climate?

  152. dbstealey says:

    celestiasfalling says:

    “AMA (Ask Me Anything).”

    OK: do you approve of and condone this censorship?

  153. blankflankcelestia (aka celestiasfalling) says:

    dbstealey says:

    “do you approve of and condone this censorship?”

    I still have yet to read any statements or announcements posted by the mods on Reddit itself about the issue. I know for a fact that /r/science has no formal rule condemning denial of climate change (as they would call it). That being said, one of its moderators has at times unofficially (that is, without using his “M for Moderator” tag which denotes official comments, or on sites other than Reddit) admitted having a strong bias against such comments, comparing them to “other” conspiracy theories such as the anti-vaccine movement. The best summary of his unofficial statements is that any comment directly citing peer-reviewed evidence is welcomed regardless of the content, but that other comments contradicting scientific consensus (whether they be about intelligent design, astrobiology, or climate skepticism) are removed.

    I can say, as a moderator of a very small subreddit, that he as a mod would not have a way of knowing who is using multiple accounts and who is not. All single-sub bans (which is all he has access to do) are based on account only and not IP address; moderators do not have access to the IP addresses of subreddit subscribers. The idea that it was “just a few problem users” is just speculation on his part unless he has ties with the admins (which as a mod of a “default subreddit” he very well may have).

    The actions, if his unofficial comments are true, are in my opinion a step too far. Questions about climate change should be welcomed but inciteful comments (such as a rebuttal which cites a WUWT article as evidence) should not be.

  154. Unmentionable says:

    I thought the role of moderator was to govern interactions to make it moderate, not dictate, censor, create conflict and stomp on discussion. Remember those moderators at public forum debates? Can you imagine one of them dictating what a debaters could reference in their debate? Or have them tossed out of the hall if they did not comply? A moderator who did that would be considered to have attacked free-speech itself and been widely condemned by all sides as out of control and clearly inappropriate to the role.

  155. DirkH says:

    blankflankcelestia (aka celestiasfalling) says:
    December 21, 2013 at 10:17 am
    “The actions, if his unofficial comments are true, are in my opinion a step too far. Questions about climate change should be welcomed but inciteful comments (such as a rebuttal which cites a WUWT article as evidence) should not be.”

    Yeah, driving traffic to a non-Condé Nast website; we can’t have that.

  156. DirkH says:

    LloydB says:
    December 21, 2013 at 6:04 am
    “Ironically they’d often delete the best supported, devastating arguments against AGW, leaving behind rants to help create the illusion that skeptics had nothing relevant to say.”

    What is ironic about that? It’s SOP amongst that type of people. Wouldn’t be surprised if they fabricate those rants themselves (Cass Sunstein tactic).

  157. Lady in Red says:

    I like Mosher’s approach, as well as Rocky Road’s: either flood the Reddit site with idiot exaggeration of the horrors of AGW — or the wondrous benefits of AGW. Both work.

    Perhaps the US is hitting a tipping point, not on CO2, but about political correctness. While I’m far from homophobic, or a Biblical literalist, I’ve chuckled, loud and often, as Walmart sold out of “Duck” merchandise and GLAAD stumbles from citizen backlash, unlike ever before. ….and poor A&E grapples with ways to hang onto their “golden ducks.”

    I am sick, sick, sick of political corrrectness, and, in the case of Reddit, mostly in the name of Pathological Altruism: (see: http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/09/pathological-altruism/)

    But, pick o’ the litter on the lunacy of our times goes to Mark Steyn:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366896/age-intolerance-mark-steyn

    ….Lady in Red

  158. Kevin Hilde says:

    NO …. DO NOT TAKE MOSHER’s ADVICE!
    Sock puppetry pulls us down toward the level of the Gleicks and Lewandowsky’s. It’s their side’s tactic, not ours.

    I suspect Mosher’s suggestion was sarcasm. It seems he has little respect for many here. I’m sure he’s well aware of the dishonest tactics used but CAGW proponents and seemingly would like to believe we’re no different. For the most part we ARE different. Don’t forget it.

    Integrity matters.
    Integrity matters.
    Integrity matters.

  159. Jimbo says:

    As a PHD chemistry holder I wonder how Mr. Allen feels about Quasi Crystals.

    Guardian
    Nobel Prize in Chemistry for dogged work on ‘impossible’ quasicrystals
    Daniel Shechtman, who has won the chemistry Nobel for discovering quasicrystals, was initially lambasted for ‘bringing disgrace’ on his research group

    A scientist whose work was so controversial he was ridiculed and asked to leave his research group has won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry………

    In an interview this year with the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, Shechtman said: “People just laughed at me.” He recalled how Linus Pauling, a colossus of science and a double Nobel laureate, mounted a frightening “crusade” against him. After telling Shechtman to go back and read a crystallography textbook, the head of his research group asked him to leave for “bringing disgrace” on the team. “I felt rejected,” Shachtman said………..
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-prize-chemistry-work-quasicrystals

  160. Kevin Hilde says:

    *used by

  161. Maggie Bloom says:

    The /r/science sub reddit has over 4 million members. I am one of those who was banned from /r/science. (science sub reddit). I moderate the climage skeptics sub reddit. I broke no rules and my behavior was polite and on topic. I was given no warnings and was not banned out right but was shadow banned. that’s where you are added to the spam filter so your posts don’t show up. There are screen shots available to show that /m/nallen is lying about who was causing the problems.

  162. blankflankcelestia says:

    Unmentionable says:

    “I thought the role of moderator was to govern interactions to make it moderate, not dictate, censor, create conflict and stomp on discussion.”

    The role of the moderators of a subreddit are to ensure that the rules of that subreddit are followed. With a few egregious exceptions (such as the sitewide bans against giving out other users’ personal information without their permission and against encouraging interference with another subreddit or website), the moderators of a sub are free to set whatever rules (or lack thereof) that they want to. For instance, /r/science does not allow memes or jokes in any comments, /r/IAmA requires that users post proof of their claims in the post (or provide such proof to the mods if the proof is sensitive information), and /r/leagueoflegends does not allow posts about the latest DotA update.

    DirkH says:

    “Yeah, driving traffic to a non-Condé Nast website; we can’t have that.”

    That is not the point of /r/science’s rule against citing non-peer-reviewed sources as evidence. First off, many people make their own blogs and put ads on them, and posting a link to a blog article can be considered sketchy, especially when there is peer-reviewed evidence (or a news article directly about it) which can be posted instead. Non-question comments which do not link to peer-reviewed evidence are evidence that either the commenter was too lazy to find any such evidence or that none exists. In the former case, the commenter should search for the evidence and post it in their comment. However, if there is no peer-reviewed paper on a topic, and especially when an opposing standpoint already has numerous such papers, then from the standpoint of the scientific community it cannot be considered to be a valid argument.

    Lady in Red says:

    “I like Mosher’s approach, as well as Rocky Road’s: either flood the Reddit site with idiot exaggeration of the horrors of AGW — or the wondrous benefits of AGW. Both work.”

    Sockpuppets (accounts specifically made to evade bans or provide the appearance of a false consensus or a “larger army” than actually exists) are exactly what this moderator is claiming are the major problem users that caused him to make the decision that he unofficially made. With advice like this being suggested by multiple users of this website, it is not surprising that their viewpoint is being discounted by the moderators.

  163. Slacko says:

    cwon14 says:
    December 20, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    While I fault the core of the AGW activists I also fault the weak minded skeptical community for their mushy indifference to the core politics driving alarmists to success.

    Well, don’t hold back. Most skeptics haven’t got around to understanding what drives the core politics. And some don’t even know where those drivers are located.

  164. Maggie Bloom says:

    Here is a screen shot of /r/science thread which shows deleted comments. compare this to what /m/nallen claims took place.
    http://i.imgur.com/oiXDp.png
    everyone is welcome to visit /r/climateskeptics

  165. DirkH says:

    blankflankcelestia says:
    December 21, 2013 at 1:16 pm
    “However, if there is no peer-reviewed paper on a topic, and especially when an opposing standpoint already has numerous such papers, then from the standpoint of the scientific community it cannot be considered to be a valid argument.”

    OIC. You don’t like Einstein. Or Newton for that matter.

  166. DirkH says:

    Maggie Bloom says:
    December 21, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    “There are screen shots available to show that /m/nallen is lying about who was causing the problems.”

    There goes reddit; becoming part of the nomenklatura; like the wikipedia ages ago.

  167. dbstealey says:

    Kevin Hilde says “Integrity matters!” [repeated 3 times]. Kevin is right. He also writes:

    “Sock puppetry pulls us down toward the level of the Gleicks and Lewandowsky’s. It’s their side’s tactic, not ours.”

    Exactly. The sockpuppet blankflankcelestia* says: “Sockpuppets (accounts specifically made to evade bans or provide the appearance of a false consensus…)”

    A ‘consensus’ is almost always untrue, or at the least, inaccurate, unless rigorous controls are employed. Further, there is no “consensus” in science. That unscientific term has not only been misused, but the fact is that if there is any consensus at all, it is heavily in favor of the 31,000+ scientists and engineers [all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD's] who have flatly stated, as OISM co-signers, that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

    Allen’s position is directly contrary to the true scientific ‘consensus’, but Allen is still desperately trying to silence the majority who do not accept that “carbon” is a problem. Empirical [real world] evidence clearly shows that the “carbon” scare is a false alarm. The fact is, the planet is starved of CO2.

    *post your real name — or as Anthony says, you will get no respect.

    =================================

    Julian in Wales says:

    “’These people [Allen's disciples] were ‘true believers.’ I thought I was a ‘denier’ now I am a ‘true believer’?”

    For many years now, scientific skeptics have been pointing out that those who believe in Mann’s fabricated Hokey Stick chart are “True Believers”. They are akin to a witch doctor’s acolytes, who blindly accept Mann’s thoroughly debunked chart, which purportedly shows that the climate never varied prior to the Industrial Revolution. Of course the climate varied, as scientific skeptics have argued all along. Obviously that stings Allen, so now the is going all psychological as a Reddit censor, and projecting his own label onto those with different opinions.

    Allen has placed himself in the position of arbiter, personally deciding what is true science, and what is not. Who elected him to decide? Science is fraught with people who believed they knew scientific Truth. Allen is simply another jamoke in a long line of such discredited people. He should not be permitted to decide matters of science, which makes Reddit nothing more than another climate alarmist propaganda organ.

  168. DirkH says:

    dbstealey says:
    December 21, 2013 at 2:16 pm
    “Kevin Hilde says “Integrity matters!” [repeated 3 times]. Kevin is right.”

    Mosher is a deceiver. The entire affair was never a propaganda war for me. It is a propaganda war for the warmists. I am only interested in recognizing the truth. And if the warmists continue to successfully deceive the population and empty their pockets then fine with me; I see what they’re doing. If Condé Nast wants to strengthen the propaganda effort, let’em; they’re a private company.

  169. blankflankcelestia says:

    DirkH says:

    “OIC. You don’t like Einstein. Or Newton for that matter.”

    I never said such ideas are necessarily wrong, just that they have not been proven and as such cannot be used as an argument to support a theory.

    Just for the record, my standpoint on AGW is that it has had some effect but is not enough to get alarmed about unless the ice caps melt entirely. In my opinion (I must add in the qualification that this theory is untested and is simply based off a regression of actual data), the warming is 0.75C per century superimposed on a sinusoidal natural cycle with a period of 60 years and an amplitude of around 0.12C whose sine wave last peaked in 2005. This matches quite well with the HADCRUT4 data from the 20th and 21st centuries. The idea that this warming is caused by a part of a long-scale solar cycle is plausible but unsubstantiated; however it will likely be proven correct or incorrect sometime in the next 50 years as the big drop predicted by the long-term solar cycle theory should be starting in the next few years and should be unquestionably noticeable by the 2030s. Personally I am a proponent of the idea that grand solar minima cause global cooling on the scale of 1C or so; however I believe at least a small majority of the 0.75C warming of the past century is caused by atmospheric gases (whether that means CO2 addition or sulfur reduction).

  170. dbstealey says:

    blankflankcelestia says:

    “I never said such ideas are necessarily wrong, just that they have not been proven and as such cannot be used as an argument to support a theory.”

    By that standard no conjecture or hypothesis would be permitted.

    In science, the hierarchy is: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law, which is the basis for rational argument.

    But then, no one is accusing Reddit of being something other than a purveyor of warmist climate propaganda…

  171. blankflankcelestia says:

    dbstealey says:
    “The sockpuppet blankflankcelestia”

    Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one screen name specifically for the purposes of having others believe you are two separate people (generally this means either evading a ban or posting as if you were two people in agreement, usually including replying to your own post at least once… incidentally, simply using an additional account as a “throwaway” to post about something sensitive and totally unrelated to your usual postings is not sockpuppetry but rather just pseudonymity). The idea that a username is a sockpuppet of a real life person, though easy to imagine, is not the proper usage of the term in Internet parlance. I have not used another username on this site, thus I am not a sockpuppet.

    Also, a TL;DR (which stands for Too Long, Didn’t Read and is a synonym for summary) of the second paragraph of my last post is that I think that there is a small amount (0.75C per century at the very most, and that is assuming the recent string of large solar cycles had no effect on the climate) of human-induced climate change, but it is nowhere near a large enough issue to warrant the ready-fire-aim preservationist approach being proposed by Gore, Obama, and others on the far left. Such an approach would only be warranted if a sea ice area minimum of zero were to ever be observed.

    ++++++++++++

    [Reply: "blankflankcelestia" says above, "I have not used another username on this site, thus I am not a sockpuppet."

    Moderators can see if someone is posting under different names. In this case the same source posted under the names: "blankflankcelestia", "celestiaisfalling", and "okie333". That person has been posting here since early last June. ~mod.]

  172. blankflankcelestia says:

    “Moderators can see if someone is posting under different names. In this case the same source posted under the names: “blankflankcelestia”, “celestiaisfalling”, and “okie333″. That person has been posting here since early last June.”

    The second of the three names you mentioned is the original name I used to make this comment. I thought of a more witty one afterward and announced via my username tag that I had changed it to my current one (i.e., specifically mentioned that I am the same person). I am currently staying at the house of a very conservative friend who showed me this article in an attempt to get me to stop using Reddit, his username may be the third one you mentioned.

    [Understood. Mod]

  173. rogerknights says:

    The first generation to go completely thru the school sponsored brainwash programming from start to finish is now in that 20-30 year old age bracket.
    Their brains are incapable of seeing the truth. They process information based on what was taught to them and stored in their brains as knowledge/fact/truth during the 15 years they spent in school.

    “If you learnt it in school, it’s probably a lie.”

  174. rogerknights says:

    Lady in Red says:
    December 21, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Perhaps the US is hitting a tipping point,

    And a tapping (out) point.

  175. rogerknights says:

    blankflankcelestia says:
    December 21, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    Non-question comments which do not link to peer-reviewed evidence are evidence that either the commenter was too lazy to find any such evidence or that none exists. In the former case, the commenter should search for the evidence and post it in their comment. However, if there is no peer-reviewed paper on a topic, and especially when an opposing standpoint already has numerous such papers, then from the standpoint of the scientific community it cannot be considered to be a valid argument.

    Wikipedia has a similar rule about requiring citations. But its foundations aren’t as strong as it seems. When a paper is flawed, or its conclusions aren’t fully justified by its “findings,” there isn’t necessarily a paper or letter to point that out. The scientific literature seems focused on publishing findings and counter-findings, and sometimes literature reviews, but not on hosting critiques and defenses of papers based on mere reasoning. Thus, requiring contrarian arguments to cite a paper supporting their position puts them at an unfair disadvantage.

    Consider the Climategate emails. Where are the papers in the scientific literature minutely critiquing (or defending) those emails? Or consider UNIPOCC’s recent AR5. Multiple threads here on WUWT pointed out flaws in it, such as obfuscations, internal contradictions, hidden assumptions, one-sided examination of the evidence, etc. All a reddit poster could do would be to link to those threads–there are no (or few) scientific-literature papers containing those criticisms.

    Or consider the papers here by amateur scientists like Eschenbach & Tisdale (among others). Their analyses are as “professional” as one is likely to find in the academic literature. Just because they have chosen not to jump through the hoops of getting published shouldn’t mean that a commenter who would like to cite them can’t do so. They should be treated at least as indulgently as IPOCC treats “gray literature.”

  176. Lady in Red says:

    I’m sad to face the reality that many Redditt folk may never see anything beyond the manufactured hysteria by the AGW folk, but I agree:

    Integrity, integrity, integrity.

    Recently, a friend was lamenting her need to take a statin drug for high blood pressure. “Have you heard about Red Yeast Rice?”

    “Yes, but I could never take that!” she said, in a greatly affected and haughty manner. “You realize, you can never tell what’s in those pills!”

    Big pharma won that round. …..Lady in Red

  177. DirkH says:

    blankflankcelestia says:
    December 21, 2013 at 3:04 pm
    “I never said such ideas are necessarily wrong, just that they have not been proven and as such cannot be used as an argument to support a theory.”

    An argument only becomes valid after being approved by government scientists? How very nice for the government; and for reddit, the government’s voice.

  178. blankflankcelestia says:

    blankflankcelestia says:
    “An argument only becomes valid after being approved by government scientists?”

    First off, most scientific journals are run by private organizations. The term “peer-reviewed” is used for a reason, that reason being that the people reviewing the scientific work are other scientists. The review process provides credibility to the work since it has passed muster with several other experts in the field rather than just being accepted by the individuals writing it, who may mean well and may be experts in the field themselves but might not catch every flaw in their research. While the arguments presented in books or independent publications may be scientifically valid, they also may very well not be in ways which someone uninitiated would find to be very credible but an expert would instantly be able to identify. This is especially important with statistical tests as there are plenty of ways to modify (or fail to modify) data that would result in a more desired conclusion but still seem perfectly valid to a layman. Peer review is like the Carfax of science; it doesn’t catch absolutely everything, and there are plenty of “non-lemon” papers outside of the system, but you are much more likely to be able to know you’re looking at reliable science if it’s been reviewed. Just to give an example, there are some very interesting ways to prove that two different numbers (usually 0 and 1) are equal, in particular the one involving integration by parts seems bulletproof, but if the proof were set before experts in mathematics, chances are very high at least one of them could quickly tell you that the proofs are invalid and reject the paper.

  179. Bill from Nevada says:

    Like all leaders of movements designed to fail every word you say has the sound of reversal of reality. reddit doesn’t have authority to command that anything not approved of by living scientists isn’t valid.

    Claiming that the very well known method of spreading truth in face of a small group of determined profiteers – spreading truth through anonymity – is detrimental to spreading of truth – that’s more of you, sounding like your favorite chemistry subject’s vodka.

    What you’re doing is trying to justify reddit hiding so far behind the censorship wall no truths come through that might disturb the echo chamber.

    I don’t wish you good luck with that, I wish you what it deserves, and what it deserves everywhere people think they can block truth forever through lying more and more stridently.

    The entire PURPOSE of internet discussion is that it’s utterly anonymous. In fact the very people known in history who have done the most to HARM truth

    have insisted everyone reveal who they are, to whatever degree they could do it.

    Obviously you’re not fully adapted to adult discourse where being right matters or you’d be too embarrassed to drizzle such obsolete, Inquisition-age trash as a philosophy of science outlook.
    =======
    blankflankcelestia says:
    December 21, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    Sockpuppets (accounts specifically made to evade bans or provide the appearance of a false consensus or a “larger army” than actually exists) are exactly what this moderator is claiming are the major problem users that caused him to make the decision that he unofficially made. With advice like this being suggested by multiple users of this website, it is not surprising that their viewpoint is being discounted by the moderators.

  180. DirkH says:

    blankflankcelestia says:
    December 21, 2013 at 6:38 pm
    “Peer review is like the Carfax of science; it doesn’t catch absolutely everything,”

    You mean sometimes a discovery slips through? Oh dang.
    BTW, have you swallowed a telephone book as a kid? Some monumental verbosity. Sorry, don’t know the REDDIT abbreviation to bring that across, you mentioned it some lightyears of letters back in time.

  181. Bill from Nevada says:

    People who insist everyone who speaks identify themselves so they can be found and harassed are the leaders of * * *the most evil movements in humankind’s history.* * *

    Is it any wonder we find it to be a favorite tool of government grant and alternernative energy scammers?

  182. Bill from Nevada says:

    Here’s a good comparison of the people in history who were for anonymity vs those against it:

    And this is just a SHORT list. There are LOTS of smaller groups identically aligned.

    The Inquisition: people had to identify themselves and subject themselves to any form of abuse authorities wanted.
    Religious revolutionaries: wanted to simply be able to share and compare truths, bring Christianity out of the “must apply for permission to speak” age.

    The Soviet Union: all speech must be approved.
    The Third Reich: not exactly all speech must be approved but it damned well better not find itself disapproved. Toward the end: all speech must be approved.
    The people against United States Civil Rights: find out who they are, where they live, capture/terrorize.
    The people against women being able to escape abusive husbands: “That’s my wife and I have a right to know who she’s talking to.”
    The people running climate scams: “We’ll control what peer review even is!”

    There’s no making the bell UN ring when someone starts claiming they aren’t going to let people have a dissenting opinion any more. The bell rung, an while all the jack boots, always have the same old reasons,
    It’s the people who believe in this criminality disguised weakly as voodoo who do it and who did it, and who are mortified at facing public opinion with such loose intellectual bowel movement, passed off as scientific soup for the truth searching soul.

    It can’t pass the most cursory of glances and that’s why everyone who believes in it looks earnestly forward to the day when people actually stop glancing at it, noticing it’s all backward, and commenting.

    For anyone who’s studied history, forcing your enemies to self identify is synonymous with terror movements. Al Gore’s movement, his political one, is a terror movement. It appeals to people who like to frighten people, herd people, – terrorize and demoralize them.

    The pseudo-scientists who claim their science is even real don’t have answers, all they have are government jobs or some kind of connection to energy market profiteering. Nobody who’s in a real industry can duck criticism this way, the liabilities spread out too many directions.

    Therefore the entire global warming scam isn’t science. It’s above-the-law fraud that avoids examination at every turn then demands respect for having created victims of society.

    Creating fake victims through scams then claiming to help save the people they target is one of the fundamental underpinnings of the methodology of true sociopaths. People who intend to do evil things to other people. Create victim: demand respect and elicit gratitude for saving. Make pretense of having special insight through association with authorities or process.

    I invite anyone to go look it up and compare the scientific blog editors world wide with the profile of the sociopath. It is bone chilling and more than that, it’s real.

  183. dbstealey says:

    blankflankcelestia says:

    “I am currently staying at the house of a very conservative friend who showed me this article in an attempt to get me to stop using Reddit, his username may be the third one you mentioned.”

    Just a thought: I wonder how many people these days, [especially internet blog moderators!] do not have their own computer, or iPad, or any other internet device — and have to borrow someone else’s to make a comment?

    Or conversely, is “blankflankcelestia” staying at someone’s house — someone who doesn’t have their own computer or internet access, and so he is forced to use hers to make comments — without her knowledge??

    The excuses given by “blankflankcelestia” don’t pass the smell test, IMHO. I think she’s been caught being a sockpuppet. Simple as that.

  184. Janice Moore says:

    “…some lightyears of letters back in time.” (Dirk H. at 6:51pm today)

    LOL

  185. Frank K. says:

    Folks – just go to Reddit and see for yourself. It’s one of the worst sites I’ve ever seen. It amazes me that anyone takes them seriously at all. I couldn’t care less what their editorial policy is – just dump them! Not worth anyone’s time…

  186. David says:

    [Snip. This site's Policy does not allow commenters to label others with the pejorative "deniers", an insult that takes the place of critical thinking. ~ mod.]

  187. Lady in Red says:

    The sadness, Frank K., is that many many fools will read only this perspective: Reddit.

    (The good news, perhaps, is that many who ask questions, are curious, will be “edited/deleted” at Reddit and begin to look elsewhere…. confused. This happened to me, years ago, at RealClimate. Hell, I didn’t know anything, but my questions, apparently, were too pointed, and intense, in my attempt to learn. Quickly, sadly, my questions disappeared: the black hole of RealClimate. ….I began to wonder.

    (…on another note, ClimateAudit had little time for my lack of sophistication, mostly. But, bless ‘em, they tried. …and helped, as best they could in the midst of some intense statistical analysis.

    (Integrity, integrity, integrity will win out. There are some interesting folk who will make it into the history books about this chapter in the understanding of the world’s climate. There will be Darth Vadars and Luke Skywalkers. ….and we know who is which.) ….Lady in Red

  188. Owen in GA says:

    All I know is if I were his division VP at Dow and cared about whether his production was going to increase my stock options or sink them, I would be very carefully reviewing his products and assumptions for any reviews he did on product lines. This type of thinking tends to pollute the scientific output of those exhibiting it. Dow can’t afford to carry someone who is suppressing contrary science, the lawsuits can be bankrupting even for a large multinational. I think I will be reviewing my holdings in Dow for possible thinning!

  189. dbstealey says:

    David,

    Before your comment was snipped I noticed that you say there is no way to refute “a warming globe”, or similar words.

    You are wrong, and you should spend some time here rather than at the anti-science blog Reddit. You will learn some facts, such as the fact that the planet is not warming.

    Those are six [6] separate, empirical measurements showing conclusively that global warming has stopped. If you read WUWT for a while, you will get an honest education. Because clearly, you have been misinformed. And CO2 does not have anything measurable to do with temperature.

  190. john robertson says:

    Having read thro the comments, it strikes me as funny.
    At least Allen at Reddit is honest in his censorship, on the rest of the “True Message” sites, critical comments are just put on super secret moderation.
    One of the best methods I have seen used, was the sites where your comment, shows up when you revisit, but if you check in from a different address, you find you were never there.
    I much prefer Anthony’s approach, and have developed an appreciation for this site’s ethical standards.

  191. Mike O says:

    Reddit is bigger than you think. It would do all of us good to spend some time on the /science
    subreddit and defend the truth. It is amazing what they are doing over there. Please sign up at their site and help stop the destruction of science.

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/how-big-is-reddit-very-very-big-indeed/

  192. Poptech says:

    Mike O, you have apparently never tried to have a discussion over there.

  193. Mike O says:

    Poptech, I have and they deleted my comments on most of them. I encourage everyone to do the same. They won’t delete all of them. There is still a long way to go on this debate. Or am I waiting my time…

  194. Maggie Bloom says:

    just come over to the climate skeptics subreddit. the warmers show up there to troll the place. we could use some knowledgeable commenters.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/new/

  195. David says:

    I see you are very sensitive about your position and did not publish my comment due to use of the word denier. However you failed to make any comment on the facts I gave you regarding Australia in 2013 registering its hottest day, month, season in a 12 months period and almost certainly its hottest calendar year. This in itself is not evidence of global warming but the same pattern is being reproduced around the globe.

    Recent research shows that the temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise. In previous research global surface temperatures have been based on incomplete data, with some regions left out (most notably over Africa, the Arctic, and Antarctica). The most northerly latitudes have been warming faster on average than other spots on Earth since the late 1990s, so if you leave them out you see a somewhat cooler global average than you should.

    As for CO2 – it is well established in the scientific literature as a greenhouse gas and its steady increase in concentration in the atmosphere correlates with the observed rise in global temperatures.

    I have never read any blogs on Reddit. I came across this thred by other means.

  196. Poptech says:

    David, the term “Denier” is a dishonest ad hominem that is frequently used in an incoherent way by AGW proponents trying to attack those who hold a scientific viewpoint different from their own. It is used by those who are ideologically biased and cannot rationally defend their position but instead frequently resort to censorship.

  197. David says:

    Ok – we will leave that issue about denial. What about the rest of my comment?

  198. Lars P. says:

    David says:
    December 22, 2013 at 3:41 pm
    Ok – we will leave that issue about denial. What about the rest of my comment?

    If you talk Australia the best is to let the australians tell you their point of view:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/a-few-facts-on-flannery-climate-council-and-propheses-of-bushfire-no-long-trends-for-katoomba/
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/australias-record-hottest-12-month-period-junk-science-say-the-satellites/
    “Again, for the third time, the more accurate, more comprehensive satellites show it was a hot year, but was probably not a record. Satellite data shows we didn’t have a hot angry summer. Man-made emissions were probably not to blame for the hot angry summer we didn’t have. And now apparently we also haven’t quite had the “hottest” 12 month period since 1910 either, but the hottest since 2010. (But what’s a hundred years between friends?)”

    As for CO2 – it is well established in the scientific literature as a greenhouse gas
    “The science” of CO2 contains a lot of still to be clarified unknowns, Claes has several posts about it:
    http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/OLR

    however CO2 even if taken granted what alarmists say, would in best case cause 1°C warming for doubling. That is no future catastrophy.

  199. Poptech says:

    David, we have been told weather is not climate. Are record cold temperatures a sign of global cooling?

    Skeptics support that there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age but we do not find this alarming.

    We have also been saying for some time that temperature trend for the last 15 years has been flat or decreasing based on Satellite data,

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2014/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2014/trend

    David, it appears you have never actually read any of the skeptic’s actual arguments and have instead resorted to repeating inaccurate talking points. If you are interested in learning actual skeptic arguments I suggest watching the following lectures and comment on something we are actually talking about,

    Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

    John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, UHA.

  200. David says:

    You argue your case by using an Australian website produced by people who are not climate scientists and who do not think global warming is happening – why should I trust their interpretation of the data?
    Having been to Canada I have seen the devastation to the forests being caused by the pine beetle due to warmer winters not killing the larvae. Visited Scandinavia where the locals very readily talk about the warmer winters and reduced snowfall.
    WHile these are only personal observations they dovetail with the measurements of a warming landmass and ocean.
    I have looked at the satellite images of reduced Arctic ice – yes there is more sea-ice in Antarctica due to increased precipitation and wind movements.
    Do you think this is all being manufactured by scientists all over the world?
    Almost every major climate science institution agrees the data shows a warming planet and that the main driver is CO2.
    It is better to trust these scientists and take action rather than the few who disagree.

  201. Poptech says:

    David, you complain about the arguments of a website not run by climate scientists, then support your argument with anecdotes from non-scientists about their feelings on weather events?

    What is the starting date for the satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice? How do you know the Arctic ice has not been reduced to the same levels in the past?

    There is scientific evidence that there has been less Arctic Sea ice in the past,

    Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago (Norwegian Geological Survey)

    I don’t see the point in asking idiotic questions about if we believe that scientists are manufacturing the satellite measurements of current Arctic sea ice conditions. I asked you to please address actual arguments being made not ridiculous talking points that have no basis to actual discussions that go on here.

    What are these “climate science institutions” are how many scientists do they represent?

  202. David says:

    And, re your lectures by Lindzen and Christy – don’t you have something up to date?

  203. David says:

    Why are you offended at being called a denier yet call my comments ridiculous? Here is a list of scientific organisations that agree the world is warming:
    Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

    Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
    Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
    Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
    Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
    Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
    Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
    Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
    Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
    Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
    Académie des Sciences, France
    Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
    Academy of Athens
    Academy of Science of Mozambique
    Academy of Science of South Africa
    Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
    Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    Academy of Sciences of Moldova
    Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
    Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
    Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
    Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
    Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
    Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
    African Academy of Sciences
    Albanian Academy of Sciences
    Amazon Environmental Research Institute
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Anthropological Association
    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
    American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
    American Astronomical Society
    American Chemical Society
    American College of Preventive Medicine
    American Fisheries Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Biological Sciences
    American Institute of Physics
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    American Public Health Association
    American Quaternary Association
    American Society for Microbiology
    American Society of Agronomy
    American Society of Civil Engineers
    American Society of Plant Biologists
    American Statistical Association
    Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
    Australian Academy of Science
    Australian Bureau of Meteorology
    Australian Coral Reef Society
    Australian Institute of Marine Science
    Australian Institute of Physics
    Australian Marine Sciences Association
    Australian Medical Association
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
    Botanical Society of America
    Brazilian Academy of Sciences
    British Antarctic Survey
    Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
    California Academy of Sciences
    Cameroon Academy of Sciences
    Canadian Association of Physicists
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Canadian Geophysical Union
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Canadian Society of Soil Science
    Canadian Society of Zoologists
    Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
    Center for International Forestry Research
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
    Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
    Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
    Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Crop Science Society of America
    Cuban Academy of Sciences
    Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
    Ecological Society of America
    Ecological Society of Australia
    Environmental Protection Agency
    European Academy of Sciences and Arts
    European Federation of Geologists
    European Geosciences Union
    European Physical Society
    European Science Foundation
    Federation of American Scientists
    French Academy of Sciences
    Geological Society of America
    Geological Society of Australia
    Geological Society of London
    Georgian Academy of Sciences
    German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
    Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Indian National Science Academy
    Indonesian Academy of Sciences
    Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
    Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
    Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
    Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
    InterAcademy Council
    International Alliance of Research Universities
    International Arctic Science Committee
    International Association for Great Lakes Research
    International Council for Science
    International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
    International Research Institute for Climate and Society
    International Union for Quaternary Research
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
    Islamic World Academy of Sciences
    Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
    Kenya National Academy of Sciences
    Korean Academy of Science and Technology
    Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
    l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
    Latin American Academy of Sciences
    Latvian Academy of Sciences
    Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
    Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
    Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
    Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
    National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
    National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
    National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
    National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
    National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    National Association of Geoscience Teachers
    National Association of State Foresters
    National Center for Atmospheric Research
    National Council of Engineers Australia
    National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    National Research Council
    National Science Foundation
    Natural England
    Natural Environment Research Council, UK
    Natural Science Collections Alliance
    Network of African Science Academies
    New York Academy of Sciences
    Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
    Nigerian Academy of Sciences
    Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
    Oklahoma Climatological Survey
    Organization of Biological Field Stations
    Pakistan Academy of Sciences
    Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
    Pew Center on Global Climate Change
    Polish Academy of Sciences
    Romanian Academy
    Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
    Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
    Royal Astronomical Society, UK
    Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
    Royal Irish Academy
    Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
    Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
    Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
    Royal Society of Canada
    Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
    Royal Society of the United Kingdom
    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    Russian Academy of Sciences
    Science and Technology, Australia
    Science Council of Japan
    Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
    Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography
    Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Slovak Academy of Sciences
    Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Society for Ecological Restoration International
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
    Society of American Foresters
    Society of Biology (UK)
    Society of Biology, UK
    Society of Systematic Biologists
    Soil Science Society of America
    Sudan Academy of Sciences
    Sudanese National Academy of Science
    Tanzania Academy of Sciences
    The Wildlife Society (international)
    Turkish Academy of Sciences
    Uganda National Academy of Sciences
    Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
    United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
    World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
    World Federation of Public Health Associations
    World Forestry Congress
    World Health Organization
    World Meteorological Organization
    Zambia Academy of Sciences
    Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

  204. dbstealey says:

    “Up to date”, David?? Scientific facts do not change.

    David says:

    “…you failed to make any comment on the facts I gave you regarding Australia in 2013 registering its hottest day, month, season in a 12 months”

    That is simply local weather. Understand? It’s local.

    Then David says:

    “You argue your case by using an Australian website produced by people who are not climate scientists… why should I trust their interpretation of the data?”

    Apparely David ignored the comments of MIT’s director of its atmospheric physics department, Prof. Richard Lindzen. Dr Lindzen is the country’s premier Climatologist, in arguably the world’s best engineering school. Who should we listen to? David ["Having been to Canada..."&etc]? Or Dr Lindzen? Because they cannot both be right.

    David continues:

    “Recent research shows that the temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise.”

    Flat wrong. <— those multiple data sets are empirical observations, accepted by even the most rabid, wild-eyed climate alarmists. David's opinion is not sufficient to counter those verifiable real world scientific facts.

    Finally, David falsely asserts:

    “Almost every major climate science institution agrees the data shows a warming planet and that the main driver is CO2.”

    David is, as usual, flat wrong. Empirical [real world] measurements show conclusively that the rise in CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperatures.

    David, whatever you learned at the alarmist blogs you frequent is misinformation. It is wrong. You have been lied to; bamboozled by people who are spoon-feeding you alarmist propaganda for their own self-serving agenda.

    Stick around here for a while, and you will begin to see that very clearly.

  205. Poptech says:

    The arguments haven’t changed.

  206. Poptech says:

    In case it was not clear in my previous response. David, the main arguments in those lectures have not changed in the last couple of years.

    David says: Why are you offended at being called a denier yet call my comments ridiculous?

    Go look up the logical fallacies ‘ad hominem’ and ‘strawman’. You are presenting ridiculous strawman arguments for positions that we do not hold. Is you intent to make yourself look ridiculous here?

    Here is a list of scientific organisations that agree the world is warming:

    Strawman, which skeptic here does not believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age?

    Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

    David, this is not 2006 we are well aware of your fictitious argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. I have now asked you three times to actually address an argument we are making. Have you just stumbled upon this debate this week? Now please answer my question,

    How many scientists does those organizations represent as holding that position? *

    * Please provide empirical evidence to support any numerical totals you use.

  207. dbstealey says:

    David says:
    December 22, 2013 at 6:42 pm [ ... ]

    David is amusing. He lists places like the Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences, the Palestine Academy, the Sudan Academy of Sciences, the Ecological Society, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Nigerian Academy, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Canadian Society of Zoologists and many similar non-climate oriented groups [while insisting above that only climatologists count], in his desperate Appeal to Authority fallacy — but David never provides any testable, measurable science to support his belief system. [Note to David: anyone can cut 'n' paste nonsense like your list, but the only thing that really matters here at the internet's "Best Science" site is empirical, testable facts and measurements — something you seem to avoid at all costs].

    The Wood For Trees site downloads the HadCRU, GISS, and other databases, which all show conclusively that as CO2 continues to rise, global temperatures do not follow. Thus, the CO2=cAGW conjecture is decisively falsified.

    If David wants to have any credibility at all, he will dispense with Mauritius, Zimbabwe, and the rest of the organizations whose opinions have been bought and paid for, and instead argue based solely upon scientific facts. So far, he has not done so.

    Empirical scientific measurements show conclusively that ∆CO2 does not cause ∆temperature. Therefore, the entire alarmist climate scare is debunked.

    If David has testable, measurable scientific facts that support his belief system, I urge him to post them here and now. Otherwise, he is just another amusing character who strayed away from one of the echo chamber alarmist blogs. You know: one of the blogs that censors all scientific scepticism, and only allows wild-eyed arm waving of the Chicken Little variety.

    Facts, David. We need facts. Not assertions, opinions, and appeals to corrupt authorities. TIA.

  208. Poptech says:

    David, also you list is not “climate science institutions” (very few such specialized institutions exist) as you falsely implied.

  209. David says:

    You know I hope your views are correct because if they are we will not inherit a warmer globe with all the harm it will cause.

    I understand you are passionately opposed to the consensus view about global warming – I realize science is not based on consensus but on observed fact, in this case it is the consensus of the interpretation of those observed facts. But science is rarely black and white – there is always room for a dissenting view and those views have to be considered. That is what has been happening and the views of Richard Lindzen have been critiqued and found to be in error.

    I see you just wish to ridicule my views (eg. Otherwise, he is just another amusing character who strayed away from one of the echo chamber alarmist blogs) and you just dispute my facts. I gave you facts about our recent weather in Australia – I understand the concept of local weather – Australia is a big continent so we are talking about regional weather. I said my observations were personal but they dovetail in with observed measurements.

    For records in other parts of the world see: http://tcktcktck.org/2013/08/summer-of-2013-brings-record-breaking-heat-to-asia-europe-north-america/56088#sthash.z8MKwXnT.dpuf.

    So it is not local but global weather that has set records this past year. Put this together with the period of the past few decades and we are talking about CLIMATE.

  210. Poptech says:

    David, I see you have managed to avoid all of my questions.

    David says: I understand you are passionately opposed to the consensus view about global warming

    Please provide the poll of the world’s scientists to support your argument. (We are well aware of the bogus “97% studies)

    That is what has been happening and the views of Richard Lindzen have been critiqued and found to be in error.

    Why do you keep repeating debunked talking points? Your statement is a factually untrue. The existence of a criticism does not mean the criticism is valid. Dr. Lindzen has rebutted all published criticisms made against his scientific arguments.

    …and you just dispute my facts.

    You have not presented any relevant facts but multiple logical fallacies and refuse to actual respond to my arguments, let alone answer my questions.

  211. Maggie Bloom says:

    David, you say “Recent research shows that the temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise.”

    Sadly the temperature record has been manipulated. It is not currently hotter.

  212. Lars P. says:

    David says:
    December 22, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    You argue your case by using an Australian website produced by people who are not climate scientists and who do not think global warming is happening – why should I trust their interpretation of the data?
    David, the site argues with real data for Australian climate.
    The satellite data supports the arguments of the skeptics.
    What do you bring against satellite real data? What are your arguments?
    No real data. Annecdotes.

    While these are only personal observations they dovetail with the measurements of a warming landmass and ocean.
    There is no measured ocea warming for the 0-100 m surface data in the ARGO data. Did you know that? What is the quality and error marging of warming of ocean for the rest where we have only annectdotal data?

    I have looked at the satellite images of reduced Arctic ice – yes there is more sea-ice in Antarctica due to increased precipitation and wind movements.
    Do you think this is all being manufactured by scientists all over the world?

    What increased winds and precipitation in Antarctica? Do you have data to back that out?
    And if increased wind and precipitation cause the increase in ice in Antarctica could than not cause the decrease in ice in the Arctic?
    You grant it for one side and not for the other, however the global sea ice is over the normal? And now it is summer in the Antarctic?

    Almost every major climate science institution agrees the data shows a warming planet and that the main driver is CO2.
    It is better to trust these scientists and take action rather than the few who disagree.

    Trust is good, but control is better.
    Your arguments are very weak and miss the logic. Mostly appeal to authority.
    Based on your answers you do not seem to have taken the time to read through the comments and our arguments, but just post lost of posts with same regurgitated arguments that we have already seen.

    As Poptech above said:
    Poptech says:
    December 22, 2013 at 8:40 pm
    David, I see you have managed to avoid all of my questions.
    …..
    You have not presented any relevant facts but multiple logical fallacies and refuse to actual respond to my arguments, let alone answer my questions.

    This is no screaming contest David.
    Either you have arguments or you lose the point irrelevant of the fact that you post again and again the same nonsense. That is not an argument.
    Try to argue your case with real arguments based on real data.

    David says:
    December 22, 2013 at 7:45 pm
    You know I hope your views are correct because if they are we will not inherit a warmer globe with all the harm it will cause.
    Where is the harm? The last 150 years warming has been good for the overall biosphere, did you know that? The carbon cycle of the whole biosphere increase by and estimated 30% since the Little Ice Age. Did you know that?
    The estimated greening of the planet is of about 10% in the last 3 decades based on satellite studies. Did you know that?
    Why not? Is this not important according to you?

    You bring record warm examples, have you looked at the record cold too?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/30/july-ends-on-a-frigid-note-as-record-cold-outpaces-warmth-nearly-10-to-1/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/01/record-cold-in-interior-alaska-heading-into-the-usa-agriculture-at-risk/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/03/record-cold-and-snow-to-hit-central-usa/

  213. Pamela Gray says:

    David, there is only one atmospheric direct cause of heat waves over land (blocking highs). So you need to be able to mechanistically link that the direct cause (blocking highs) was charged up (stalled, increased LW infrared radiation in the blocking high area, etc) by anthropogenic additions to greenhouse gasses. The portion of greenhouse gasses that is anthropogenic is quite small. In order to attribute your blocking high heat wave to anthropogenic influence you need to know the energy available from the anthropogenic addition to the atmosphere and compare it to what is needed to increase the natural state of blocking high heat waves to a new state of heat waves.

    I will save you the trouble. There isn’t enough energy.

    Your second course of action would be to consider increased water vapor. Models postulate and base their warming projections on increased water vapor due to increased anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere as the primary source of increased LW infrared heating. If you are going to say that it is increased water vapor that did it, show me the data that describes an increase in water vapor near/in the hotspot areas where records were set.

  214. Pamela Gray says:

    David, your third option is to run a regional scale projection of climate models that cover your heat wave areas and see if they accurately reflect observations. If they do not, one has to question whether or not our understanding of anthropogenic warming mechanisms are accurate.

    I will save you the trouble. It has already been clearly established that our understanding of anthropogenic warming mechanisms are not accurate. Models do not match observations at any scale.

    In summary, for you to continue to state that humans are influencing weather pattern variations (IE climate), demonstrates a lack of knowledge on your part of the current state of climate science research.

  215. dbstealey says:

    David,

    Warning: You are now on a site that allows all sides of a debate. It is not a propaganda site that limits comments to those supporting one side or the other. Therefore, you must demonstrate credibility by providing the basis for the assertions you make.

    You assert that “Recent research shows that [global] temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise.”

    I provided several databases of global temperatures showing that your assertion is wrong. The ball is now in your court: refute what I posted, or concede the point.

    Next, you asserted that “Almost every major climate science institution agrees the data shows a warming planet and that the main driver is CO2.”

    Once again, I showed that your assertion is wrong, replying:

    “If David has testable, measurable scientific facts that support his belief system, I urge him to post them here and now…. Facts, David. We need facts.”

    But you provided no testable, reproducible data to refute the scientific evidence that I posted above.

    David, I sincerely hope that you see what has happened: you have been getting your misinformation from the media, and/or blogs that have an agenda in getting you to believe that there is runaway global warming in progress. But the scientific facts are as follows:

    1. There is no runaway global warming. None

    2. All climate parameters being observed today are well within historical norms

    3. Prior to the industrial revolution, global temperatures were both higher, and lower, than they are now. CO2 had no correlation to rising temperature

    4. There is no scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming

    5. The only verifiable relationship between temperature and CO2 is this: ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is no scientific evidence that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. None.

    Climate models are wrong. All of them

    Draw your own conclusions, David. You’re an intelligent guy. And as you do, remember that there is an immense amount of money riding on convincing people that “carbon” is a probloem.

    “Carbon” is not a problem. CO2 is both harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere at current and projected concentrations. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

    Please go back to wherever you are getting your misinformation from, and get whatever scientific evidence you can to refute the points raised here. We’re all ears, because scientific skeptics want to understand how the universe works. But we have no patience with people who use anti-science propaganda to push their climate alarmist agenda.

Comments are closed.