Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 107. (Read 636455 times)

That's... That's not fair to uncle toms......

...when he plays his Uncle Tom role and follows the money trail?

#GlobalWarmingLifeMatter ?






----------------------------------------------
Al Sharpton is never wrong...

Thanks for the laugh.

Join 0bamacare. Save a Polar Bear™

Pretty bold of them. Wonder why they have to change their message to get people to believe them....

Study Urges Media To Frame Global Warming As Global Warming Climate Change A ‘Public Health’ Problem





A new study is urging activists and the media to talk less about how global warming will impact the environment and more about how it will negatively impact public health. Framing global warming as a public health issue, the study says, will convince people to support policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

“When framed as an environmental problem, this interpretation likely distances many people from the issue and contributes to a lack of serious and sustained public engagement necessary to develop solutions,” reads a new study published in the journal Environmental Communication.

The study urges activists to use the legitimacy of the media to barrage the public with coverage on how global warming could make public health problems worse, like asthma and mosquito-born illnesses. Activists must keep the narrative alive in the media until the public believes it to be true, the study argues.

“It is our contention, then, that environmental and health advocates need to do what they can to foster the increased usage of public health frames in climate change news and also boost the total level of quality climate change reportage,” the study’s authors urge. “After all, the use of an engaging and effective news frame may not matter if the legitimacy of the issue is called into question by dwindling coverage.”

This new study basically lays out the same strategy the Obama administration has adopted when it comes to global warming. The White House has made great efforts to link global warming to personal afflictions, like asthma or heat strokes. The administration recently hosted a national summit with doctors, nurses and activists to urge medical professionals to tell patients about the alleged dangers of warming.

“We also need doctors, nurses and citizens, like all of you,” Obama said in a taped speech at last month’s summit, “to get to work to raise awareness and organize folks for real change.”


http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/13/study-urges-media-to-frame-global-warming-as-a-public-health-problem/#ixzz3fneCFPru

No such thing as coincidence. This is an undeniable proof of a scientific miracle.

You mean, a statistical 97% accuracy in predicting global cooling NOW MEETS a made up, politically driven, 97% opinion that we are headed for global warming?

Now that's rather interesting.

"97%"... We meet again.

 

Model of sun's internal dynamics.  97% ACCURACY??

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

It's important to keep in mind that religicizing the looming threat of Global Cooling is no different and no better than the situation with Global Warming.

Or if "deniers" were to adopt religious patterns of faith and belief, instead of critical thinking and rigid adherence to scientific examination.

Just saying.

Really interesting video. Thanks for sharing it.

I never really believed in it, but I never cared enough to look into it, to argue about it and just didn't care. Still don't really. But I find it interesting to see the comparisons that scientists believe in it like a religion, and won't discuss being wrong, the "incontrovertible truth" he talks about.

Of course banning the opposition, the deniers, in Reddit, is just like banning atheists from religious forums.

And in the 1880s-1890s scientists were puzzled when they found that combustion of coal could not account for the energy output of the sun.  They could not have dreamed of our world or our understandings of today.  But you would glibly assume a "problem" 100+ years hence?

If so then be my guest, make a fortune in the stock market or Vegas, with far easier predictions.

Ivar Giaever: Global Warming Revisited (2015)

Nobel Peace prize scientist and (former) Obama supporter turned global warming dissenter (gasp) reveals the scientific 'data' behind global warming 'science', which he describes as a new religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk60CUkf3Kw

The main thing we are going to accomplish along your path are even more powerful multi-national corporations if indeed multi-national even has any meaning going forward.  They are the primary driving force behind 'sustainability' you know?  And, of course, the panic about CO2 is 100% or nearly so simply a tool to achieve these goals.

From Hardin's observations as I remember them, 'starving people fight inefficiently and mostly among themselves.'  That is exactly the herd dynamics one needs to pursue large goals with minimal interference from the masses.

Hello.  Cutting back on available energy will be hard on the poor.  Not cutting back on available energy - at least if we're talking solely about energy from fossil fuels - will be harder on the poor.  And running out of fossil fuels will happen eventually (and probably at a time that won't be that much different) regardless of AGW or doing anything about it.

Unless we get smart enough to develop some other sources of energy, the poor are effing screwed.  So let's get with the damn program and try something else already.

Cutting back on available energy will kill literally millions of poor people who are on the edge.  I'll grumble a bit about being gouged, but I'll be fine.  What people who have a simplistic understanding of systems think is that people will pay a bit more for gas in their SUV's here in the U.S. and their mopeds in the developing world.  That thought uncovers the ignorance of how important energy completely across the spectrum of human life.  Our food, our clothing, our homes, etc.

Same family members I spoke of earlier have a dim conception of poor Africans getting by with solar cookers until they can get some solar panels (not even stopping to consider that most of them are hard pressed to get a pair of shoes.)  I hate to be the bearer of bad new to the eco-crowd but these people are not going to lay down and die.  They will do what all energy starved people have always done which is to burn every stick they can find on their way out.

With energy we could deal with climate change and kick as few people as possible out of the lifeboat.  Without energy we cannot sustain what we have now in what seems to ignorant people to be a optimal and stable environment.  You probably don't grok this stuff but it is a near certainty that those who have cultivated your disposition among the masses are completely aware of these things.

BTW, I am fully aware of the potential for overpopulation and a situation where it is simply impossible for there to be enough lifeboats.  I studied Hardin as a youth (instead of Rand like most here.)  Although I think it would be 'better' for earth and humans if there were fewer people I do not believe we are even very near that point where our population is 'unsustainable', and it is certainly not a crisis which calls for forced depopulation.  On the other hand, we could be looking at a leveling off at around 9x10^9 specifically because of the successful operations of the eugenicists I dis-agree with.  Not sure yet, but it's a compelling hypothesis which neatly explains a variety of observations.

WTF are you talking about?  An extreme environment would in fact be hardest on the poorest people. 

I am specifically hoping for an outcome that doesn't involve creating an extreme environment.  IOW, I would like an outcome that saves a lot of people, not just the rich people. 

It's the ones who don't give a crap about our influence on the environment, or don't believe we're powerful enough to cause an influence, who are setting up a future where only the wealthy survive.

Well, not exactly.  Run some back of the envelope calculations on human starvation in the case of a "year without a summer" as occurred during the Little Ice Age, given the current population level and distribution.  It ain't pretty.

Also, there is no such thing as "luck" regarding solar cycles - that would be like a primitive native seeing an eclipse, and fearing the next one which could come at any uncertain time.  Actually, primitive people learned the cycles of eclipses to high accuracy - they learned to predict them.  Saying on the one hand that "it would be luck", eg., "we don't know the cycles behind the solar minima" and on the other "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED ON GLOBAL WARMING (climate change, blah blah blah) is obviously ridiculous.

Then consider that in this circumstance, all the AGW alarmists would have been working to increase the severity of these problems and hence the severity of the negative outcomes for us and the planet.  This is why we need clear, unbiased scientific analysis of actual facts - instead of the hype, propaganda and stupidified "science" that is currently passed off as "consensus thought on climate."

A level of understanding of internal solar dynamics is driving the things the solar scientists are saying - so they are not simply taking some data and "projecting it forward," as the AGW alarmists are doing - and that's really all they are doing to create their fear forecasts.

This is inexcusable.