My 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”.
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.
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.
Well I’ve banned Reddit…..
No change there then.
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
I am an avid user of Reddit. AMA (Ask Me Anything).
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?
celestiasfalling says:
“AMA (Ask Me Anything).”
OK: do you approve of and condone this censorship?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
As a PHD chemistry holder I wonder how Mr. Allen feels about Quasi Crystals.
*used by
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.
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.
cwon14 says:
December 20, 2013 at 2:27 pm
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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…