Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 122. (Read 636455 times)

Yes, he's a lowly bachelor level ME.  But you see, he is not to be trashed because he pushes the preferred narrative.  So you leave him alone.  Because he's right because the consensus of the few and fewer say so.

LOL....

Goldman Sachs Is Our Best Bet Against Climate Change

Although it may not be the obvious hero, usually more Vampire Squid than White Knight, Goldman Sachs and its cohorts could be responsible for transitioning the renewables sector from a fragmented and esoteric industry to one of mainstream dominance. It’s facilitated the development of world-encompassing industries before and they will do it again.

In its 2014 Annual Report, Goldman compares the potential of the renewables market to that of the Internet, “Mass market adoption of any new, disruptive industry often takes a path of early enthusiasm followed by market rejection, volatility and ultimately, acceptance. This was true of the Internet, and evidence suggests a similar course when it comes to clean technology and renewable energy.” ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/26/goldman-sachs-is-our-best-bet-against-climate-change/

Sounds like you are the Denier, now.

Actually, there exists no better way to evaluate problems and solutions than the engineering approach.  Scientists are not terribly good at this.

Engineers built spacecraft and their systems, scientists may design experiments for those systems.

With AGW, proposed "solutions" must pass tests devised using the engineering method.

Isn't Bill Nye (the propaganda guy) an ME?  He spouts off regularly about climate and 'educates' a lot of mouth-breathers on the subject.

Yes, he gained additional credibility back when he fully supported the BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) project and promised to accept the results no matter what they showed... until the results didn't match his expectations and he quickly rejected them.

What a lovely and credible guy!

Yes, it's the Oregon Petition again, where the likes of engineers and maths teachers are listed. Since when was an engineer considered to be a scientist?

Who cares what an engineer thinks about global warming? Do you ask a plumber for advice on how to fix your car instead of a mechanic?


Great, but where are the published scientific papers with predictions? Your list seems to consist of things like random people making a comment or journalists writing an article. You don't measure the science by what is done outside of the scientific method.

You generally seem to have an issue. You seem to be listing all kinds of irrelevant things. The fake Oregon Petition, a list of predictions that aren't actual scientific predictions, etc.


Again, great, but what does this have to do with the actual science?

The scientific consensus is a perfectly valid argument to regular people who want to know what the science says. Can you mention any respected scientific organizations that reject global warming? If not, why not? Are respected groups like famous journal "Nature" taking part in a massive conspiracy?

What cases of fraud?

The hockey stick has been independently verified plenty of times.

What e-mails? The ones in the fake controversy "Climategate" where the science-opponents had to resort to fake quotes and such to create a fake controversy?

It has been warming in the past 20 years as well, sorry.

A rather poor list.


Fraud on the part of those who reject the science doesn't exactly refute the science, I'm afraid.


The hockey stick has been verified multiple times by independent studies. McIntyre tried to refute it, but failed.


Which ones, and how does it matter?


This is false. There has indeed been warming in the past 20 years.


They do not refute the consensus. On the contrary. But I know this claim is being pushed by people who either misrepresent or do not understand the experiments.


What public warnings?


What does this have to do with the consensus on actual climate science? Never mind the fact that you are wrong. These surveys have not been refuted.


There was no admission of a lower climate sensititivty. What they did was to adjust the range back to a previous range.


Who made this change, and where? Even the latest report from the IPCC uses the term "Global Warming."


How is an average global temperature against the laws of thermodynamics?

I'm not sure what you are saying about the ocean. Is energy going into the ocean or not? If it is, why is the concept of energy going into the ocean flawed?


Actually, the latest report (AR5) adjusted the range back to what it was in previous reports. It was changed in AR4. And the change was far from "considerable."


Yes, the sun influences the climate. Your point being? Do you even know what the science says about the sun's role?


And?


How so?


Such as?


Actually, I do. The scientific consensus is the best way for regular people to know the current status of the science.


No, it has to do with the combined results of scientific research.

I am a fan of American Thinker, but I am sorry that statement is just mostly bullshit. Yes the environmentalists love to blow things out of proportion and often use the public outcry for profit, but that doesn't make every initial complaint false. The best propaganda has a seed of truth at its core which keeps it alive. I am not supporting every reaction to these problems by environmentalists, but lets not pretend these things aren't issues at all and ignore potential harm reduction measures.

DDT: "In addition to more than two dozen studies documenting the presence of DDT in breast milk and human tissues, the petition cited three studies, published in 1968 and 1969, linking DDT to cancer. In one, DDT had been found to cause as many tumors in mice as did the known carcinogen aminotriazole.12 In the second study, successive generations of mice fed high doses of DDT showed increasing rates of leukemia and tumors.13 The last study, a human study, found that DDT levels were twice as high in people who had died of cancer compared with those who had suffered sudden or accidental deaths.14 The studies, the petitioners concluded, provided “clear evidence that DDT causes cancer in animals and provides very strong indications that it produces cancer in man.”15"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821864/


Pesticides: http://www.who.int/heli/risks/toxics/bibliographyikishi.pdf ,  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/aip/179691/


Acid Rain: http://folk.uio.no/rvogt/CV/Co-author/Larssen%20et%20al%201999.pdf

Cancer and EMF fields: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/154/12/S50.full.pdf

Charlie Rose To Neil DeGrasse Tyson On Climate Change: “Do We Have Too Many Scientific Deniers?”…



On Monday’s Charlie Rose show, the host couldn’t get through a interview with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson without asking about climate change and what to do about all those “scientific deniers?”

When the host of StarTalk Radio stressed the importance of understanding science so people can “vote intelligently” on the issues the PBS host mentioned “climate change” and asked: “Do we have too many scientific deniers in our country or do we give too much prominence to those who want to look the other way on science?”

This prompted Tyson to launch into an attack on journalists who give “equal column space to all sides,” including “the Earth is flat” people.

Back in March, as MRC’s Scott Whitlock reported, Rose hyped Tyson in a 60 Minutes profile that never noted his fake quotes and errors. The MRC’s Mike Ciandella has noted there has been an ongoing effort by activists to bully the media into calling skeptics of climate change “deniers.”



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2015/05/26/charlie-rose-climate-change-do-we-have-too-many-scientific-deniers

I'm looking, and will find it.  It had to do with the actual in atmosphere CFC decomposition and resulting catalytic effect theory, this being the basis of the political arguments,  being disproved. 

In the meantime, here's an interesting perspective on the ozone scare.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html

The CFC ban empowered and emboldened the eco-left. It paved the way for their next big scam. The environmentalists scored a big win when they finally banned DDT and doomed millions to a bleak death. Their subsequent eco-scares were not so successful. They were never able to affect global action in their belief in zero population growth. Widespread starvation and scarcity of resources has not happened. Pesticides and herbicides have proven not to be deadly to children. Acid rain has not resulted in widespread deforestation. High power transmission lines do not cause cancer. The use of chlorine produces more safe, potable water than any other intervention. The CFC ban gave them a "win," and it was based on some of the most specious, tenuous science one can imagine. But it proved a point: Proven science need not trump environmental ideology.

Their next target -- perhaps the ideal target of CO2 -- was in their sights. Noise about global warming started in the late '80s, but it didn't really get much traction until the mid- to late '90s...right after the CFC ban was a done deal.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html#ixzz3bIZZhmvk
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Care to even reference that study? IMO we have real and serious environmental issues, IMO CFCs are one of them. Global warming just serves as a red herring to distract from the real issues like the dangers of nuclear energy, fracking, or pharmaceuticals at detectable levels in the water supply.

Some time back there were some scientific developments that cast doubt on the old assumed "CFC breakdown effects" and which in turn throw into doubt the entire "ozone hole" arguments.  But it's interesting that once government gains control of an area or a subject matter, they don't let go.

Same with the "asbestos threat."  And many other examples.

Freon is a CFC. It is purported that CFCs break apart the ozone layer, but more importantly they continue to react and do so over and over instead of being depleted. While IMO global warming is a red herring, I do believe we are damaging our ozone layer, and depleting it would be bad (like we can't go outside with exposed skin bad).

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/freon-really-affect-ozone-78916.html

I have no idea. As you probably saw, I was just quoting some media whore crap. You´ll have to ask them - I guess. Or the psychos that give  them the script.

So Freon is a greenhouse gas?

One hypothesis I've read is that to some degree the drought in California is a result of geo-engineering operations.

One of the things which would be accomplished would be to provide further impulse to the citizens of this fairly important state to get into a panic about climate change and happy to pay even more of a 'surcharge' on various things that they already do.  As a population they are already more prone to being concerned and taking action about 'catastrophic global climate change' than most.

Another thing which is proposed to be happening is that Wall Street is making bank on drought insurance which city managers buy (or don't buy.)  If one has some control over rainfall than making money on drought insurance type schemes could be very easy and lucrative.

The evidence I've seen presented supporting this hypothesis is what I would characterize as unconvincing but sufficiently interesting to pay some attention to.  If there is significant geo-engineering going on it would be at this point a state secret which would open up the door wide for money-making operations by those who are connected.  The existence of geo-engineering operations to some indeterminate degree does not really seem to be being denied at this point, and in the year since I've been paying attention it does seem to me that there have been some trial balloons floated.  In observing a variety of things, I have come to the conclusion that trial balloons are a fairly powerful indicator of various thing and weigh fairly heavily in the analysis of various hypothesis.

Yes, like back then when opposing fraudulent wars scammed through by psychopaths was considered unpatriotic - by the psychopaths. It´s always pretty much the same crap from that garbage and its whores.

Bill Nye: Denying science is "unpatriotic"







"When you have people denying this basic process, and how we all got here, it’s offensive to me intellectually. And I happen to think it’s unpatriotic. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says the government shall “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” So if you’re a politician looking to derail the progress of science, I think you’re not doing your job."


http://www.vox.com/2015/5/19/8621539/bill-nye-interview


Except that’s not really what Article I, Section 8 says. Notice what Nye left out of his quote:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Now he’s Bill Nye the Constitutional Scholar Guy? What a clown. He’s using the section of the Constitution that is the basis for patent law to back up his assertion that questioning the science behind his climate alarmism is somehow unpatriotic.

And we really don’t need Bill Nye as the head of the patriotism police, thank you very much:







http://twitchy.com/2015/05/24/bill-nye-the-constitutional-scholar-guy-the-highest-form-of-patriotism-is-science-or-something/