3 ms·
That's... interesting. I hope that they didn't ban people who deny that the current climate change is man-made? Denying facts is just silly, forbidding a discus
by nkuttler 13y ago
That's... interesting. I hope that they didn't ban people who deny that the current climate change is man-made? Denying facts is just silly, forbidding a discussion about causes for these facts seems non-scientific.
- samspenc 13y agoAbsolutely. I was pretty shocked myself upon reading this article. I guess that forum is going to be only people who are agree on climate change now.
- Rudism 13y agoThe article seems to indicate that they primarily forbade the posting of conspiracy theories (ie, the "Big Green" and "Big Oil" accusations), and that bans only came after repeated violations of the rules.
- NegativeK 13y agoReddit is not something that should be held up to scientific rigor. Also, the assumption that the climate change denial comments have any chance of being well supported (not just because they're wrong, but because they're not authored by people with scientific training) is probably misplaced.
- nkuttler 13y agoCertain reddit communities are vigorously trying to uphold scientific standards. AskScience, AskHistoriance etc come to mind. Yes, if deniers of man-made climate change can't cite scientific sources they shouldn't write in scientific reddits. The problem I see with "people with scientific training" though is that it's very hard to make a career unless you support the view that the current climate change is man-made, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.p.... But there should (still) be enough percentage points left to find valid opposing arguments.
- tinco 13y agoWhy would they not ban people who deny current climate change is man-made without proper evidence, and so disrupt proper scientific debate? Where do you get the facts idea, I don't see anything about facts in the article. What facts are you talking about?