I tried posting a thing or two at Reddit a while back (by invitation), but one of my i’s wasn’t dotted, or a t wasn’t crossed, and the ankle biters who make up the bulk of its moderators and who act like over-zealous college freshman who just memorized Robert’s Rules of Order made the experience so unpleasant that I never went back.
Plus, too many folks who haunt that site, basking in the anonymity, engage in things like this: “‘I fought back with awesome’: Woman who lives with painful skin condition shames the bullies of Reddit who thought her picture was a laughing matter.”
I am therefore not in the least surprised that the Dear Leaders on the science forum on that site has banned dissent from the party line that global warming is going to strike—soon, soon—and destroy us all. Reddit is now no different from many major newspapers, television outlets, learned societies, and peer-reviewed journals.
It will be interesting to see if Reddit “cleanses” past posts of skeptical comments in the same way various Peoples regimes erase enemies from photographs.
Anyway, all these organizations (in their forums and house organs) have decided that the science is settled, and, that being the case, there is nothing more to say. A valid argument if the premise is true and the science really is settled, which they all believe. Strangely, though, given there is nothing more to say they still manage to keep on saying things and at ever-increasing rates.
What do they talk about? Us. Mostly, they talk about us.
They gather for the sole purpose of shaking their heads at each other in bewildered amazement that people like us could imagine that the science isn’t settled. “All the people who agree with our view that the science is settled,” they say to themselves, “say that the science is settled. Therefore the science is settled. The deniers who deny what we believe most faithfully must therefore be insane, wicked, evil, and whoppingly ignorant. We are the opposite.”
They also thus talk about themselves and how wonderful their selves are.
They talk about the many, many failed forecasts and say, “Those darn deniers don’t understand that these forecasts haven’t failed. They were off in observation, but they were right in spirit. And since they were right in spirit, the science is still settled and the end is still nigh.” Right in spirit means wrong in reality, yes, but the theory which defines the spirit is so achingly beautiful that it is truer than reality.
They talk about the motivations of skeptics. “They’re all in the pay of big oil! And those vile Koch brothers!” “I know just what you mean. I was so mad about it I almost couldn’t finish my grant application to study the effects of global warming on racism.”
They talk about what awards they should give each other. “Oh! How about calling the James Hansen Bravery…
Skip it. This kind of thing is now utterly routine. The party of tolerance and openness and diversity and honest debate doing what they do best.