Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Debate Is Over: Popular Science Does Away With Comments
The Gateway Pundit ^ | 9-25-2013 | William Teach

Posted on 09/25/2013 2:09:52 PM PDT by servo1969

This flows in perfectly with the Warmist notion that debate is great, and they’re willing to debate anyone anytime anywhere, but when challenged disappear and refuse.

Why We’re Shutting Off Our Comments

Comments can be bad for science. That’s why, here at PopularScience.com, we’re shutting them off.

It wasn’t a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.

I guess they haven’t heard of using methods like Bad Behavior, Akismet, Disqus, and others systems. They aren’t perfect, but certainly cut down quite a bit.

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

Science like this, where the 1930′s data was changed to be cooler?

The article cited is a NY Times whine-fest about people not buying into “climate change”, ie, people who use lots of fossil fuels and air conditioning blaming Other People for Bad Weather caused by using fossil fuels and air conditioning. Seriously, who would want to discuss the reality of the science of “climate change” when we find out the Himalayan glacier report in the 2007 IPCC AR4 was based on a speculative comment in an email?

(Vox Popoli) Comments aren’t bad for science. Comments are bad for those who are stubbornly clinging to outdated scientific paradigms that are showing obvious cracks.

There are many Warmist websites I’m blocked from commenting at. Same with other Climate Realists like Steven Goddard, Tom Nelson, Anthony Watts, etc. Because Warmists do not want debate: they want people to sit down, shut up, and smile as Government becomes more intrusive and controlling. All based on a lie and junk science.


TOPICS: Astronomy; Books/Literature; Business/Economy; Computers/Internet; Conspiracy; Education; Health/Medicine; History; Miscellaneous; Reference; Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: change; climate; climatechange; comments; global; globalwarming; popular; popularscience; science; warmist
"is mistakenly up for grabs again."

I'm sorry to yell but EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE IS ALWAYS UP FOR GRABS!
Nothing in science is permanent. That's not how science works.
Even the Law of Gravity is up for grabs if you can disprove it.
Once you decide something can never be disproven it ceases to be science and becomes faith. You believe it is absolutely true and no further discussion is necessary.

This may sound silly but Popular Science has literally turned to the dark side with this decision.

Popular Science:
We are the arbiters of truth.
People who question our positions are naught but trolls.
No unapproved ideas shall be distributed.
Shut off the light of truth.
"lively, intellectual debate" means discussing all the ways in which we are correct.

That's not called science; It's called Fascism.

1 posted on 09/25/2013 2:09:52 PM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Well, when facts interfere with what someone want to call science, then we have trouble.

Now science calls the earth flat and and wants me to be in shorts in 20 degree weather to support their theory of the warming of the earth.

While freezing, I am supposed to send money to Algore and support taxing every cowfart to make them rich.

I am just not that stupid, however, I know a hell of a lot of liberals that are. They can politely send their money and smile and think they did the right thing.


2 posted on 09/25/2013 2:17:08 PM PDT by bobo1 (L)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Excellent post! Many people, including “scientists,” seem to believe that science is a body of dogma, rather than a set of procedures for determining how reality works.


3 posted on 09/25/2013 2:22:32 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Prioritize!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

There is a 100% consensus of total agreement with global warming among everyone who matters. The deniers simply aren’t smart enough to know that global warming doesn’t necessarily mean warmer temperatures or more hurricanes. Sometimes it’s warmer, other times colder. Sometimes there are more hurricanes, sometimes less. The very fact that it can’t be predicted proves that global warming is out of control.


4 posted on 09/25/2013 2:23:18 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Foxnews, yahoo news, many are shutting off comments because the commentators disagreed with the articles. That is why I write to the editors and even webmasters.


5 posted on 09/25/2013 2:24:03 PM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

LOL...I wasn’t really sure about that post of yours...:)


6 posted on 09/25/2013 2:25:18 PM PDT by rlmorel (Silence: The New Hate Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I’ve noticed a considerable increase recently in name-calling and trolling in comments. Their sheer volume can overwhelm reasoned argument.


7 posted on 09/25/2013 2:37:04 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Some years back Popular Science's then new editor proudly announced in the magazine how it, meaning they, would immediately become proponents of scientific political “issues”. That issue of the magazine had numerous articles embracing Global Warming.

With Popular Science publicly drinking the Global Warming koolaid I, in turn, immediately canceled my subscription with comments to the effect that it no longer could legitimately justify including “Science” in its name.

Am not surprised that it can no longer tolerate reasoned comments.

8 posted on 09/25/2013 2:41:55 PM PDT by DakotaGator (Weep for the lost Republic! And keep your powder dry!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Just a few hundred years ago, most scientists of the day refused to consider the notion that the earth might be round instead of flat.


9 posted on 09/25/2013 2:49:00 PM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

They should change their name to Unpopular Unscience.


10 posted on 09/25/2013 2:52:17 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

They should change their name to Unpopular Unscience.


11 posted on 09/25/2013 2:52:17 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

And just 40 years ago the “consensus” (I’d bet at Popular Science too) was that the world was cooling and we were headed for a new mini-ice age.


12 posted on 09/25/2013 2:53:35 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Our Republic is dead. Revolution is all that's left. Kill the tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

They have long had problems with spam bots. They have also had problems with trolls - but who doesn’t. Regardless it seems ironic that a technology-oriented site (yes it’s more than that) would not be able to combat technology-oriented issues with better technology....


13 posted on 09/25/2013 2:57:22 PM PDT by Frapster (Clear the mechanism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

Thank you for clearing that up for me!


14 posted on 09/25/2013 3:36:44 PM PDT by D_Idaho ("For we wrestle not against flesh and blood...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
"What you do, if you are a serious scientist operating according to the established method, is attempt to falsify your hypothesis. Test it to destruction; carry out serious attacks on its weakest points to see if they hold up. If they do... then you have a theory that can be published, and tested, and verified by other scientists. If you don't, you throw it out."

Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science - J. R. Dunn

The "scientists" who perpetrated the global warming scam approached their science in exactly the opposite manner as the approach described above. They formulated a theory based on political ideology (as well as the path of least resistance to "grant" money) and then did whatever they had to do with their data to "prove" it.

The world has now seen the complete unraveling of the "global warming" / "climate change" scam thanks to the diligent investigative work of honest scientists like those cited in the above story who quickly exposed the Marcotte fabrication, along with the leaked email dumps of November 2009 and November 2011 (and now even more recent dumps). The discipline of science has taken a massive hit over the past five-plus years and it could take decades for science - - and scientists - - to regain any credibility with the public.

A lot of that burden must fall on honest scientists, and the first and most important thing they need to do is scream for the heads of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Shaun Marcott, and the rest of the greedy, lying "climategate" fraudsters. I guess we'll see if they have the integrity to do it.

I am most definitely NOT counting on a crap publication like 'Populist Science' to lead the way.

15 posted on 09/25/2013 3:40:39 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
I am most definitely NOT counting on a crap publication like 'Populist Science' to lead the way.

It went downhill 25+ years ago around the same time that National Geographic did. I canceled my subscriptions to both after the hard left took them over and they became political propaganda operations masquerading as science.

16 posted on 09/25/2013 4:44:37 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Bears repeating, emphatically :

Once you decide something can never be disproven it ceases to be science and becomes faith

17 posted on 09/25/2013 4:44:59 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Ditto re NatGeo.


18 posted on 09/25/2013 4:47:04 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

Most scientists or philosophers have thought the earth round for thousands of years. Plato and Aristotle said the earth was round. Tall cliffs are visible further out in the sea. There was a sunlight at the bottom of a well experiment— using trigonometry. Constellations of stars appeared differently to the ancients when journeying to distant lands.


19 posted on 09/25/2013 4:57:55 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

OK!! Everybody pay attention!

Lesson for today:

1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.

2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.

3. The earth is a rock.

4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.

5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?


20 posted on 09/25/2013 5:43:48 PM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
It went downhill 25+ years ago around the same time that National Geographic did.

That was even before NASA was destroyed by the scumbag lefties.

21 posted on 09/25/2013 6:16:39 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: abclily

The world’s a speck? That’s a cue for a song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmfAyK6CeIg


22 posted on 09/25/2013 6:39:21 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Pop Sci turned into a liberal rag years ago. I read and enjoyed it for the first two or three decades of my life but thought Pop Mech had better plans and projects.

I gave up on both at least 20 years ago.

The vintage issues are the best.


23 posted on 09/25/2013 9:06:51 PM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
There is a 100% consensus of total agreement with global warming among everyone who matters. The deniers simply aren’t smart enough to know that global warming doesn’t necessarily mean warmer temperatures or more hurricanes. Sometimes it’s warmer, other times colder. Sometimes there are more hurricanes, sometimes less. The very fact that it can’t be predicted proves that global warming is out of control.

That sounds like the statement from a delusional sociopath. Certainly not anyone versed in any science I know.
That last sentence sounds like something Al Gore or James Hansen would say. Not anywhere on my list of notable scientists of 20th Century.

24 posted on 09/25/2013 10:02:15 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DakotaGator
Some years back Popular Science's then new editor proudly announced in the magazine how it, meaning they, would immediately become proponents of scientific political “issues”.

I am surprised it is still a viable publication.
I did not keep track, but I stopped reading Popular Science about the same time, probably for the same reason in the same issue.

Militant advocacy of "scientific political issues" and actual science is an oxymoron.

25 posted on 09/25/2013 10:18:28 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
It went downhill 25+ years ago around the same time that National Geographic did. I canceled my subscriptions to both after the hard left took them over and they became political propaganda operations masquerading as science.

I just realized, since it was a long time ago that I cancelled my subscription. We should add the former "Scientific American" to the suicidal formerly respected publications.

26 posted on 09/25/2013 10:39:25 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: publius911
Your; "Militant advocacy of "scientific political issues" and actual science is an oxymoron."

Well said!

27 posted on 09/26/2013 4:30:29 AM PDT by DakotaGator (Weep for the lost Republic! And keep your powder dry!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
“Science progresses funeral by funeral.”
- - Max Planck

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
- - Max Planck

28 posted on 09/27/2013 9:29:35 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (So Obama "inherited" a mess? Firemen "inherit" messes too. Ever see one put gasoline on it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Just a few hundred years ago, most scientists of the day refused to consider the notion that the earth might be round instead of flat.

"1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
- - Agent K from Men In Black

29 posted on 09/27/2013 9:33:23 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (So Obama "inherited" a mess? Firemen "inherit" messes too. Ever see one put gasoline on it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

A few years ago under the previous editor in chief, PopSci devoted an entire issue to Al Gore and the Demagogic Party. The ever-shrinking magazine has switched editors, but too little, too late.

Thanks servo1969.


30 posted on 10/05/2013 2:58:37 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's no coincidence that some "conservatives" echo the hard left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson