They've also long been removing articles that don't support libertarian views, so this doesn't really surprise me.

They don't support free speech; that's just a thing every big site says.

Wait? What? the internet is biased and often full of lies? Say it so, Momma!

Please do not make global warming accusations on the Forum.

And the ranks of the "Conspiracy Theorists" grow... not because anyone's views have changed, but because some views have been declared conspiratorial by the Guardians of Acceptable Thought.

Watch out, the GAT will get you too.

I think that this is counter-productive. Much better for people to feel free to raise their objections, and then read the counter arguments. Of course some people will never be convinced, but for the most part deniers opinions are based on ignorance and ideology. Occasionally some deniers see the light once they learn the facts.

I don't believe that all skeptics are ignorant. There are bound to be scientists whose views go against the current consensus - and they have their own reasons for holding alternate views (indeed science needs people who go out on a limb developing new theories - that is how science progresses). But for when a non-scientist decides to agree with the non-mainstream view - this is rarely a choice rarely based in reason, and almost always ideological (with a dash of confirmation bias).

What I find is that when non-scientists disagree with AGW, they often do so for reasons that even scientists who are skeptics would consider nonsense. For example, those who don't believe that climate is affected by greenhouse gases, or "the Earth's climate has always changed (therefore it can't be humans) (a red herring)". Or the Earth hasn't warmed in the past ten years (this would not disprove AGW even it were true).

To be fair to the deniers, while their beliefs are almost always ideological, it is true that many people are predisposed to agree with AGW for ideological reasons, but it just so happens that in this case - AGW is actually the more rational view, regardless of ideology.

At this point I think its necessary to mention that climate change denial comments are only banned from r/science, not the entire site.

Which doesn't mean that the responsible redditards are not immature censoring assholes. Who even dare to advise others to follow in their steps for the greater good of us all.

What's climate change?

My hatred of redditors aside, especially their free speech hypocrisies (though 2WL is right to note that different subreddits have different philosophies on that)...

At this point in history climate change denialism is about as thought provoking as new age crystal/homeopathy enthusiasts, Chinese nationalists/Golden Dawn types, or "gay is a choice" people are.

Thucy is absolutely right about the hypocrisy regarding free speech on reddit. For example, my freedom to post on Creepshots has been denied. What happened to freedom of speech?

Lmao, 2WL

also, FIRE LOOK OUT THERE IS A FIRE IN THE BACK OF THE FORUM

Hey, how's the debate editing coming, Thucy?

doing it tonight, incidentally

That's why I use Tumblr or 4chan, not Reddit...

my personal deadline of before 2014 may actually come to fruition, stay tuned

The thing is climate change deniers are not presenting genuine or credible views. They are essentially trolling.

They're intellectually on the level of holocaust deniers. No one seriously disbelieves that the holocaust took place, and no one credible seriously believes that human behavior is not adversely affecting the climate.

While engaging people is important if you hope to change their minds, it is not worthwhile to attempt to engage trolls.

I know plenty of serious scientists who doubt AGW. They're not climate scientists, so I'm not citing them as evidence in the actual question, but on the other hand, it's silly to claim that anybody who doubts is backward or on the level of a holocaust denier.

key words: "they're not climate scientists"

I agree, Semck. All fantasies, whether child rape or denial of climate change, should be allowed.

@spyman: what possible ideological reasons would somebody have to want AGW to be true? I guess hyper-environmentalists, but that's all I can really think of.

I actually think the holocaust denier is an apt comparison.

I'm an infrequent contributor to /r/askhistorians, which is hailed as a very well moderated subreddit, and I'm fairly sure anybody spouting unsourced crank material would be deleted (such as somebody denying a historical event such as the Holocaust).

If the moderators of /r/science, in order to raise the quality of their content, decide that crank science (agw deniers) aren't contributing anything, then that is their choice. If you don't like it, go make your own subreddit.

With blackjack. And hookers.

Ouch. Even I won't say AGW deniers are quite as ridiculous as holocaust deniers. At least AGW deniers have scientific ignorance to blame, rather than a complete and utter disconnect from reality.

YJ - those whose livlihood depends upon it, via funding, and who see no harm is espousing the idea even if it is false because the agree with the political ramifications of it being true -- generally speaking, AWG believers tend to take a dim view of "capitalism" in powerful western nations, becaus they believe we are "raping" poor nations and use an unfair amount of the worlds natural resources. The outcome of policy associated with AWG generally is less available energy to producing nations -> less production of goods -> less use of natural resources "stolen" from the slave nations.

So the economic outcome of AWG policies aligns with their politics...so true or false, they can "morally" support AWG because the pragmatic outcome aligns with their beliefs....and they get paid to keep "researching" the "settled science" as a result....which you have to admit is a damn fine job if you can get it.

Where else can you so consistently produce fraudulent result and produce one failed prediction after another and still get paid?

Oh...wait...Congress...

I think this was poorly handled by everyone involved.

There is a difference between questioning Global Warming (it should always be acceptable to question science) and simply trolling. From what I've read, very few anti-GW arguments had any substance. They should have known they were playing with fire. At the same time, though, GW advocates should have just ignored obvious troll attempts and only focused on legitimate criticism. Finally, reddit most certainly should not have banned a topic; rather, they should have just cracked down on people who were using the topic as an excuse to troll.

*shrug* krellin: I don't want to get into it with you :)

I am too intellectually weak and cowardly to face your wrath.

oh sup jack klein i also post on askhistorians. usually my answers relate to the Age of Discovery, which is what I know the most anecdotes for and have read the most books on.

> Where else can you so consistently produce fraudulent result and produce one failed prediction after another and still get paid?

Krellin trolling at his finest. Everyone knows that this is what *weathermen* (and women) are for.

"spyman: what possible ideological reasons would somebody have to want AGW to be true"

Those on the left are ideologically inclined to support environmentalist causes at the expense of business. Those on the right are ideologically inclined to prioritize the business viewpoint ahead of the environmental viewpoint.

Both sides often allow their own biases to cloud their judgement. This is even more of problem when issues are highly complex (climate of course is highly complex) because there are so many arguments for and against AGW (I would argue that the balance of probabilities overwhelmingly favors AGW)

Each side views the other as "having an agenda" or "ulterior motives".
This is number one problem with getting the world to act of AGW - it is frequently seen as being something that liberals or left-wing believe, and a tactic to make the world more liberal or left-wing.

Thus for right-wingers who don't understand the science, and who to pick a side, naturally they will pick the side that they feel is more aligned with "their tribe". This is human nature.

Thus the PR battle for those who want the word to act on AGW is to convince the skeptical that AGW is not just something that liberals believe. That acting on AGW is as much something people who are pro-business should support. That it makes economic as well as environmental sense.