Bishop Hill The Reddit ban
Dec 17, 2013 Climate: Sceptics Media Grist, a website for environmentalists, reports that the science forum of Reddit has "banned climate deniers", as the article so delicately puts it. The headline writers wonder if other media outlets shouldn't follow suit. Having read the article though, there is rather less to this than meets the eye, and it doesn't actually seem that there is a blanket ban at all:
The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.
As expected, several users reacted strongly to this. As a site, reddit is passionately dedicated to free speech, so we expected considerable blowback. But the widespread outrage we feared never materialized, and the atmosphere greatly improved.
This seems mostly reasonable to me. If people are being rude or bonkers then by all means tell them not to and if they persist then ban them. There is, however, a problem in defining what is bonkers or a conspiracy theory. So when the author of the piece, Nathan Allen, writes of people accusing "hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by “Big Green”, one should remember that some apparently hard-working scientists have been bought by big green or are simply fully paid-up members of the green movement. Not all, or even most, certainly, but the political motivations of some within the scientific community are hard to avoid. One can also recall incidents like the Climategate email in which a green group circulated scientists looking for someone to write a paper to link the French heatwave of 2003 to global warming, and also Sarah Mukherjee's comments about most climate science being paid for by greens.
So there are issues of judgement to be made over what constitutes a conspiracy theory and what is legitimate criticism. Over the piece then, we have what should be a reasonable approach, provided it is put into action with a bit of thought and suitable humility about the scientific endeavour and a clear-eyed recognition of the human failings of scientists.
Oh yes, and Allen needs to get his own house in order before he accuses others of conspiracy theorising.
Reader Comments (32)
So.....what is being suggested is a moderation policy like that of the Guardian.
What could be more fair, even-handed and reasonable?
Everything must be checked for political correctness before it goes public? Like they do in China?
You wonder how someone would fare for suggesting a top EPA offcial might skive off work and pretend to be a CIA agent? Or what about suggesting another, more senior, EPA employee would maintain a secret email account? Or that a that a significant water scientist should engage in identity deception to obtain papers they were not entitled to. Or that...
Frankly if all the things that greens HAD been up to had been flagged before they became common knowledge I'm fairly sure I would have dismissed them as conspiracy theory. Fact has been stranger than fiction.
Well yes. What they,the very green greens, ultimately want is censorship of anyone who disagrees and the suspension of democracy, so they can achieve their utopian world. Scientific endeavour in all things climate related exists to aid this.
Does this include the conspiracy theory that "climate deniers" are well funded by "Big Oil"?
The poor dears are fighting a losing battle. Here is a list of climate blogs by their ranking on Alexa. The drama greens can ban as many people as they like and it just pushes them further into obscurity.
http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/ranking-of-climate-blogs-dec-2013/
An of course they will heavily moderate the "big oil is funding deniers" conspiracy theory as well, no?
The Grist article makes much of the fact that Reddit (where the author moderates) allows us ordinary mortals “a window into the ivory tower” where we can observe how arguments are supported by “numerous links to peer-reviewed science to support positions”.
The article has just two links, one to the Cook / Nuccitelli 97% Solution article, and the other to the Nuccitelli / Abrahams blogspot at the Guardian.
They believe passionately in free speech at Reddit, and pat themselves on the back at the success of their censorship policy.
While I was reading the Grist article, a message popped up: “Don't miss a green thing! Get Grist in your inbox every morning.”
Ivor, thanks, that's a fascinating and informative blog league table. Thought BH would be higher to be honest but overall the overwhelming sceptical majority is telling. Is the BH ranking split by the 2 sites (10 and 12) I wonder.
Anecdotally I meet very few people who remotely support the CAGW narrative; laughter is the most common response when it is raised around here. The public masses may well still fall for it under the onslaught of the propaganda from the BBC et al (although I sense that is now changing) and obviously those whose salary depends on it still do, but that league table does suggest that those who've taken the time to consider the evidence fall firmly on the sceptical side (as of course they should).
The "warmist" sites are their own worst enemy though, I've really tried many times to read them for balance, but the level of vitriol and censorship of reasonable comments (when they're losing the argument) I find astonishing. Reddit is just another one going down that line, as you say into obscurity.
Maybe believers see the same here on BH, I don't know. I do wince when commenters pile on Chandra and the like with the kneejerk troll accusations. Sure, I usually don't agree with them and to be fair don't think their arguments are very strong but it would be a lesser place without at least some challenge. Posters should consider how it looks to the many lurkers in my opinion.
Well, yes. But as most of the earlier respondents here have pointed out "... we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers ....." sounds very much like they are specifically targeting any anti-AGW sentiment to me. If their intention was to be honestly even-handed should not their comment have been something like '... we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers of and propagandists for ....."?
Perhaps someone with a little time to spare could monitor some relevant reddit conversations and take them to task should they be seen not to follow their own guidelines where pro-AGW comments are allowed to pass. Perhaps the results could be posted to, say, here.
One can also recall incidents like ... Sarah Mukherjee's comments about most climate science being paid for by greens.
Is that correct? I thought that tax payers were paying for most climate science.
Roy
I took her comments with a pinch of salt, but I'm sure greens are paying some researchers.
You should try posting a polite comment on the Grist article asking them to define what a "climate denier" is. It gets deleted within seconds.
I found this on the main page under a picture of a very expensive looking bicycle: "Obviously riding a bike is better than driving a car because, among other things, bikes don't emit greenhouse gases or other poisons. But what if bikes could actually reverse pollution, by sucking in smog and pumping out clean air?" Urrgh.
Still it is a good idea to ban rude and offensive posts - manner, not content. Nathan Allen's piece cannot make up its mind on this. I thought of pointing that out but commenting on that blog would be a waste of time .,...
They wouldn't need to censor posts if they were winning the relevant arguments. However as their wild predictions are now diverging so far from actual observations they cannot do that.
That's what's killing them; their theory isn't being borne out by the observed facts (virtually on every single significant point) and thus they're being humiliated on a daily basis - often by mere 'uneducated deniers', and as a result are staring down both barrels of reputational Armageddon.
That's just too much to take so they simply airbrush their opponents out of the debate and proclaim themselves the victors!
How very Marxist, how very North Korea.
The guy has a PhD. What's the use? As the comments on the Grist thread point out, what peer-reviewed science are you going to bring to refute melting of street-lamps being attributed to 'global warming'?
Nathan Allen is a conspiracy theorist. And Grist is as usual being very green by switching off the lights upstairs.
Totally agree on banning all those that support conspiracy "ideation"
As such I suggest reddit ban anyone who supports the conspiracy theory that sceptics are a conspiracy of fossil fuel companies.
This is easily disproved: EVERY MAJOR OIL COMPANY HAS A WIND DIVISION MAKING MONEY FROM WIND.
Fossil fuel companies who own energy assets ... are more than happy to see governments increase the price because this not only increases their profit as for the same % of return they get more for each unit sold, but more importantly, it increases the value of their reserves.
So, you would actually have to be either a total gozullophead or nearly clinically insane to believe that fossil fuel companies are funding sceptics. So, yes, this is a clear case where we should not pander to those who have a poor grasp on reality.
I have a problem with the word (holocaust) 'denier' becoming an accepted part of the common lexicon. Someone who doesn't believe alarmist propaganda is to be admired and not pilloried IMHO.
@TinyCO2
Yes, according to the Indy:
A senior adviser to the US’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who admitted to defrauding the government out of hundreds of thousands of dollars after claiming he was an undercover agent will be sentenced next Wednesday.
John C. Beale was the EPA’s highest paid employee and kept the scam going for13 years, making $900,000 (£551,842) by telling his bosses he worked in Pakistan for the CIA so he could take months off work.
In reality the 65-year-old climate change expert was either on holiday in Cape Cod, at home reading, riding his bicycle or doing household chores.
etc
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/senior-us-climate-change-adviser-avoided-work-by-pretending-to-be-a-cia-agent-9008912.html
My favourite part:
Beale’s lawyer .... said Beale was driven “to manipulate those around him through the fabrication of grandiose narratives that are fuelled by his insecurities.”
Well, isn’t that what a climate change expert is meant to do?
The BH site seems to be playing up today so I thought I'd take the opportunity to browse some warmist sites to see if anything has changed...
I started with Deltoid and came across old BH stalwart BBD totally monopolising the first thead with his aggressive invective and still without a shred of self-awareness. What a winning strategy. Nope, don't miss that behaviour around here. The site as a whole just seems to be non-stop juvenile name calling. Maybe folk just gravitate towards sites that match their style and then stay there. (Last time I looked on here I also came across BBD and posters going on about Dunning Kruger)
Gave Tamino a try but he's just attacking (quelle surprise) some bloke I've never heard of and also claiming Dunning-Kruger. Pass.
Real Climate has an interesting looking post about "the hiatus". With a quick skim I spot a dodgy graph that Steve Mc has covered and lots of 15 years is too short narrative (tell Phil Jones that). No comments yet but I'll revisit later I think.
And BH is back up...phew.
It depends on perspectives doesn't it...
I had an experience recently.. I had been trying to engage with one of Anthony's blog clones 'wotts' and I hope I contributed in persuading the host to change the blog name to something more positive, not a victory, but a positive step. ie hard to be civil and expect 'sceptics' to be generous, when they perceive by the very name of the blog, being a personal attack on Anthony Watts..
As I have personally experience of that as my old blogname Realclimategate, alienated some of the very people I wanted to talk to... so I changed it, which is what I recounted at the blog formerly knows as 'wotts'
If it had just been the 2 of us chatting, it would have been OK. but regular 'warmist' (for want of a better word, are also present).. and to be honest, the same happens in reverse at sceptical blogs.. (ie vocal individuals might pile on a Betts, or McNeall, Edwards or even a BBD, and the tone changes and everything goes downhill)
I think it far better to meet people, than try to discuss anything wit anybody perceived to be on the 'other side' than try to do it in a blog
Perhaps all bloggers should just stop bothering, then the politicians will just have to sort out the mess energy policy is in, without having 'scapegoats' like the GWPF, or sceptics, to explain their own failings.
I expect the outcome of Reddit, is that the debate will gradually just wither away, smaller & smaller groups commenting amongst themselves (look at Deltoid for example)
Here is the main thread discussing the Grist article:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1t0c9v/reddits_science_forum_banned_climate_deniers_why
(submitted by paid alarmist pnewell http://www.reddit.com/user/pnewell/submitted/ )
When you feel the need to ban views because they conflict with yours , that almost always means your own views are weak. In this case its a nailed on certainty.
It is a small thing but it is my small thing. I've blocked reddit in my firewall server and while I was in there, in the spirit of it all, I blocked grist, too. Trivial but satisfying.
There are far more conspiracy theories from the left/green side than "big carbon funds deniers".
Oil&gas gets huge subsidies (tax breaks).
Koch brothers control everything (google Kochtopus for a funny graph).
Capitalism causes eco-destruction due to "greed motive".
The MSM is right-wing because they are not alarmist enough.
Got into a ding dong with someone on their comments board.
Proudly declares that "Science isn't Democratic"
And i say being able to discuss and challenge science certainly is.
jamespid hits nail on head:
"Science isn't Democratic, but being able to discuss and challenge science certainly is."
The Masque of the Green Death.
====================
Last month was a bile-spewing record for a single thread on Phys.org, where I spelled out the whole Hockey Stick Team (& Tree House Club) narrative, methodically, throughout the week, and got back these reasoned replies. This month Phys.org re-organized its comment system and is now informally banning all competent skepticism that includes references, due to Off Topic and Cross Posting excuses as they ban the whole account from posting again, and new accounts are very quickly re-banned, after years of completely open moderation.
“flawed cognitive process”
“caps-lock key stuck”
“inclined to suggest therapy”
“the trolls”
“underlying motivation”
“#DenierForHire”
“sheer level of the craziness”
“some sort of mental illness”
“the pills are in that bottle”
“chess playing pigeons”
“inclined to suggest therapy”
“spouting incoherence”
“mental illness”
“political motivation”
“frantic, desperate”
“pathetic mental disease”
“really losing it”
“delusional visions of grandeur”
“terribly shrill and desperate”
“fraud and worse”
“talking points”
“unshakeable faith”
“smarter than you have the capacity to imagine”
“Illuminati Conspiracy”
“Urinate”, not “Urinated”
“the Whore of Lucifer”
“AGW deniers”
“consumption != AIDS”
“you flatter me with terms like propagandist”
“delusional denialism”
“descent into madness”
“Pedophiliaville”
“fraudulent liar and a criminal”
“desperate, shrill keening sound”
“denialist bollocks”
“just another fraud”
“a fraud, a charlatan”
“definitely a tea partier”
“gish-galloping fraudster”
“criminal fraud”
“share a cell”
“typical denialist”
“petulant child”
“trying to perpetrate his fraud”
“college drop-out”
“drug addict”
“Your motivation”
“purveyor of lies and filth”
“denialist purveyor of smut”
“denialist bollocks”
“the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch”
“seas rising steadily, without end, due to our fault.!”
“sick tastes”
“brain damage”
“ring of fire” ADD”
“(re-hashed) miss-truths”
“denialist bigotry”
“beyond stupid”
“other choice nouns”
“blind admirers”
“guy at the hospital”
“Like every other Conservative”
“Nikkitard”
“anti-psychosis medication”
“TardieBoy”
“psychotic self delusion”
“Tinky Winky thrusts his wanton pelvis”
“Chromium poisoning”
“voices in your head”
“consensus science”
“rabbit-hole occupiers”
“What a maroon!”
“a UFO trailing ISON bandwagon”
“far better off in Prison”
“Not just stalking, pedoboy, hunting.”
“denialist scumbag”
“religious extremism”
“lack of education”
“deranged pervert”
“Charles Manson has a better understanding”
“What a moron”
I've been a redditor for years now. The pro-green (or pro-any-"progressive"-position) users are even more vicious at downvoting non-concensus views than the moderators. Just post anything about sunspot cycles or any other mild objection, you'll get downvoted to oblivion.
The moderators in that forum were, however, sharply criticized for censorship, which surprised me. I guess that is more important to Reddtors than green-conformism. That's one positive sign. The other was that many said "maybe I'm OK with you suppressing non-peer-reviewed articles - now let's see if you also suppress THIS non-peer-reviewed article!" Bravo.
All climate scientists are though in the pocket of Big Government. Which is almost the same as being in the pocket of Big Green.
And as regards notions of "conspiracy", this is just some routine alarmist dishonesty, in the form of a massively overused strawman. One does not need to posit a conspiracy among government climate scientists to explain why they would seek to promote alarmism - it's something they are selected for, and do naturally, since green taxes and regulations necessarily make their benefactor - government - even richer and more powerful.
Government acting to promote itself does not require a "conspiracy". The idea that sceptics make claims of conspiracy, is just strawmanning by alarmists trying to deny the weakness of their position.