This is /R/Science, No Debating Here Please


Do you know how you can tell a scientific position isn’t science, but ideology? When there’s a ban on arguing against it. Because you know, Global Warming or Climate Change or Weather Does Stuff is settled science.

That’s why it can’t be debated.

Nathan Adler, a Reddit science subreddit moderator, boasts of having immensely improved the atmosphere by banning “contrarian” views on Global Warming.

Negating the ability of this misguided group to post to the forum quickly resulted in a change in the culture within the comments. Where once there were personal insults and bitter accusations, there is now discussion of the relevant aspects of the research. Instead of (almost comically) paranoid and delusional conspiracy theories, we have knowledgeable users explaining complicated concepts to non-scientists who are simply interested in understanding the research.

Consensus has been achieved. And harmony. All it took was banning anyone who disagreed. Could this revolutionary philosophy of ushering in a new era of glorious brotherhood be expanded beyond /R/Science?

That’s exactly what Adler has in mind.

Like our commenters, professional climate change deniers have an outsized influence in the media and the public. And like our commenters, their rejection of climate science is not based on an accurate understanding of the science but on political preferences and personality. As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral.

So 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?

Because newspaper editorial pages apparently aren’t biased enough in favor of taxing everyone to stop cow flatulence from destroying the planet.

But who decides what is antiscientific? The history of science is full of establishment bans being handed out to people who were proven to be right all along about things like doctors saving  lives by washing their hands and planes being able to fly.

Nathan Adler cynically pretends that the only way to move science forward is to ban dissenting views. That’s not science. That’s Lysenkoism.

Banning debate does not move science forward. It kills it. But that’s the whole objective of the Global Warming scam. Kill the scientific method, replace it with ideology backed by bogus numbers that you won’t release until someone leaks them, and lies upon lies, covered up by bans.

This is what’s left of science. There’s no debating allowed.

  • pupsncats

    Wow. The guy actually exposed the truth that the lefties want to ban the truth and freedom of speech when it doesn’t comport to their ideology.

    • truebearing

      The Left does inadvertently expose the truth once in a while, but assiduously avoids speaking it.

  • antioli

    If it can’t be debated then it isn’t science. It is dogma

  • tagalog

    In addition to the bitter accusations and personal insults, there was not one climate change/global warming skeptic who had a logical argument supported by factual data to make? Really?

    But I bet the atmosphere IS much calmer now that there’s no arguing among the converted. That’s how the Roman Catholic Church felt after they silenced Galileo. Of course, that’s not science. In real science, the theory of gravity, along with all other theory, remains a moot question.

  • truebearing

    I hear Chicken Little was no fan of debate, either.

    Ah yes, the Left’s procrustean method. It works on scientific debate just as well as on human lives. If something, or someone, doesn’t agree with them, lop off their right to speak or their head. No wonder the Left enables Islam.

  • DaBilk

    It’s not about science, it’s about religion.

  • Niss Green

    Science is a quest to understand the universe around us..
    There is a group of uneducated idiots who simply reject everything they don’t like with extremely stupid conspiracies (with no evidence).. and insult people with scientific knoledge calling them naive or closed minded while they are the ones who refuse to discuss the data on hand and invent new data based on a story they heard…
    Homeopathy and religions, just to name a couple, are probably the best examples of the results of allowing every idiot a voice…