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 Comments are bad for those who are stubbornly clinging to outdated scientific paradigms that are showing obvious cracks.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL...I wasn’t really sure about that post of yours...:)
I’ve noticed a considerable increase recently in name-calling and trolling in comments. Their sheer volume can overwhelm reasoned argument.
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.
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.
They should change their name to Unpopular Unscience.
They should change their name to Unpopular Unscience.
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.
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....
Thank you for clearing that up for me!
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.
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.
Once you decide something can never be disproven it ceases to be science and becomes faith
Ditto re NatGeo.
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.
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?
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.