Do you know how you can tell a scientific position isn't science, but ideology?
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.