Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 137. (Read 636456 times)

It is interesting that many of the 'deniers' take an active interest in certain things which have been appropriated by the 'greens' just because they are cool.  IIRC, the Anthony Watt guy who runs the popular 'denier' website has a solar rig.  I've got some modest solar stuff to which I've not gotten around to playing with, but I do spend a great deal of mental energy deciding where to do what on my property with an eye toward maximizing the benefits of solar flux (and minimizing the negative aspects of it for that matter.)  It seems to me that when we 'deniers' put up solar panels it is not with some unrealistic expectations about economics or ecology, but more because we have some extra spending money and an interest in the physics.

I have been fascinated by the concept of using hydrogen for at least 30 years.  I never considered it for motive power, but as an infrastructure and storage mechanism it has some theoretical possibilities.  Chiefly, it opens the possibility to make the best use of energy where it can be found.  But it has some real practical dis-advantages.  I have zero surprise that nothing of significance has happened with it because, quite simply, it is just just impractical for economic and materials science reasons.  For now.  Maybe that will change in the future, but I'm not holding my breath because it will likely be after I'm long gone.

BTW, I've mentioned before that the seeds of skepticism about the whole enviro-energy thing have been floating around mind for a long time.  The gross inflation of some of the (very cool) ideas about energy which I've seen over the years are the reason for this, and also I have hands-on experiance building machines and keeping them operational.  Only more recently did I become more aware of the enormity of the problem of grifters in the space and the connection to unrelated social engineering projects...but only more recently did I try to study the problem

My ouija board tells me a lot of the Bitcoin warmists from reddit are here among us... We can't see them. Some of them act like poltergeists. I can feel my chair moving. My "An unconvincing Truth By Al Bore" DVD just flew above my head 

It does not matter if they participate or not. The number of people viewing this thread is proof their ghostly existence among us is now settled science...


 

[Sarcasm on:  You can never underestimate how people read things]
She is a denier.  Just like that fellow, Copernicus.  He denied that the Earth was the center of our Solar-- I mean Earth system.  He claims that he doesn't believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth but rather the opposite is true.  It sounds as if he is from one of those Sun worshiping cults.  You know the competing cult, that claims the Sun is what keeps everything alive.  What hogwash.  It is time we take his funding away.
[Sarcasm off]

Whenever people use the word "denier" it is because it has a different connotation than "skeptic."

sdp

I guess I've read her work for ten years more or less.  Highly technical stuff and well reasoned.  Now consider the following.  Curry et al examines some data, comes up with hypothesis, method of examination, conclusions and summary.  The scientific method, right?


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/20/new-study-climate-alarmism-takes-one-helluva-beating/

In a paper published last year (Lewis & Curry 2014), discussed here, Judith Curry and I derived best estimates for equilibrium/effective climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR). At 1.64°C, our estimate for ECS was below all those exhibited by CMIP5 global climate models, and at 1.33°C for TCR, nearly all. However, our upper (95%) uncertainty bounds, at 4.05°C for ECS and 2.5°C for TCR, ruled out only a few CMIP5 climate models. The main reason was that they reflected the AR5 aerosol forcing best estimate and uncertainty range of −0.9 W/m2 (for 2011 vs 1750), with a 5–95% range of −1.9 to −0.1 W/m2. The strongly negative 5% bound of that aerosol forcing range accounts for the fairly high upper bounds on ECS and TCR estimates derived from AR5 forcing estimates.

Oh my gosh no.  Curry finds conclusions that don't fit the political narrative of climate change.

NOW SHE'S CALLED A DENIER!!!!  (hey...wait a minute...isn't this just some of that science type stuff???)

Well, welcome, Dr. Curry.

lol....

lovin the 'deniers' fest in here. eating alive them poor lost not-so-scientific 'believers'.

It's probably easiest to simply consider the likes of NDRC, Greenpeace, and the other major "environmental" organizations and nothing more than a new style of gangster.

Yeah, maybe until you have a wreck and instantaneous discharge....

lol....

Actually I like Prius, Teslas, etc...but not because they are trendy in some cults or fuel efficient or gonna save the world or any  of that crap.  They are just different and cool.

The electric cars, to understand them just think of them having a coal burning engine in the back, belching smoke.

Because that's where their power comes from.  But the liars pushing the Warmer scams do not tell people that.

Report: FEMA to Dole Out Disaster Preparation Cash Only to States That Buy Into Global Warming Hoax







The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change.

This may put several Republican governors who maintain the earth isn’t warming due to human activities, or prefer to do nothing about it, into a political bind. Their position may block their states’ access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. Over the past five years, the agency has awarded an average $1 billion a year in grants to states and territories for taking steps to mitigate the effects of disasters.

“If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn’t want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics,” said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s water program. “The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state” because of his climate beliefs.

The policy doesn’t affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood or other disaster. Specifically, beginning in March 2016, states seeking preparedness money will have to assess how climate change threatens their communities.



http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18032015/fema-states-no-climate-planning-no-money


------------------------------------------------------
Will FEMA let people die? They will, then blame the gov. for it. That's beyond insane. It's Criminal.

Yea hydrogen is dumb but I am pretty excited about super capacitor electric cars though. Oman i cant wait to have a sports car with a super capacitor in it. 0-60 in sub 3 seconds with no transmission. we will be able to drive cars that take off like fighter jets on an air craft carrier.

I'm afraid you basically have all that right.  And it does sound like Oregon.  I live in Texas, and among the people I work and associate with, few take "climate change" seriously or will even bother to discuss it.  But there are outliers, like devout leftists who buy into all the trendy things like Hydrogen Cars.  They actually have got mad at me when I talk about hydrogen.  All I can think of is pimply faced kids with M16 rifles standing around government rocket launch sites with big cans of liquid hydrogen.   Well, I just have to laugh at the idea of those cans going down the road in cars.   People that are hypnotized with this stuff, you can't even talk to them about the cubic volume of hydrogen only being 4 lb per cubit foot and why they'd need a huge tank to match the energy storage capacity of gasoline.  But it's interesting to watch them and their faces as say one explains that gasoline has about six times the energy density, so hydrogen would need a 120 gallon (16 cubic feet) spherical tank to replace a 20 gallon (<3 cubic feet) tank.  Likely that would be a big lump in the back of the car where the trunk used to be,

About as this point the look of baffled puzzlement starts to turn to outright hostility (and I haven't even gotten into what happens in car wrecks or in any case where the composite pressure vessel softens....).  Then I tell them that this really would be cool for a Harley, because the rider could sit on that big 8000 psi ball....

The point is there never was and never will be cars driving around with pressure bottles of hydrogen, but all these saps were easily somehow talked into it.  They never even thought to think it out.  They've been somehow taught to not think.  So yea, there are deeper issues involved than "climate change" and sooner or later, those will have to be confronted.

Classic Agenda 21.  I actually waded through the whole tedious document though I did skim it in main sections because there was a lot of repetition with some combination of 'women', 'indigenous peoples', and often enough 'young people' being inserted into most of the elements of the action plan.  Those who study the document and associated programs characterize it, I think accurately, as a program of 'inventory and control' of all resources including human resources.  Some people group the 'common core' education effort with it's high level of focus on documenting, logging, and analyzing of everything possible about students on an individual level as a facet of this more general program of inventory and control, and for my part I find it a pretty strong hypothesis.

As I've said before, I was finally started studying intensely this climate change thing after being harassed by our environmental protection people for something which was obviously not a problem.  This led quickly to our local 'watershed council' which every watershed has (at least in my state of Oregon) and is supposedly not associated with the government though they receive millions of dollars per year in grants that flow through government agencies.  The first thing I noticed was how much they focus on kids.  The image they chose for their year long best pic was someone leading the kids in some sort of group calisthenics thing just like they do in more regimented societies.  Later I found that it was 'the form of the tree' and when they get a group of kids together for some project they start off with such exercises.  It's weird and creepy to me (but then, so was saying the pledge of allegiance back when I was a kid and I always tried to get out of it.)  In my research I discovered (through a NOAA web server) that the watershed council is actively engaged with ICLEI-USA to map the local population to a 'star community' program where the objective is 'compact, complete communities'.  ICLEI's stated goal for existence is to promote the agenda 21 action plan and it was formed a year before the Rio conference where agenda 21 was born to achieve this.

CO2 in the atmosphere has changed from 0.033% to 0.04% since I was a kid is treated with the utmost concern by our governments and other leaderships.  The rate of autism in our population here in the U.S. has changed 0.01% to 1.4% since I was a kid and it seems to be treated by the government with relative indifference.  Autism is characterized by a lack of empathy.  The sufferer has a deficiency in the ability to understand how another person feels.  Usually there are other mental anomalies, but many autistic people are quite functional in certain roles.  Between having a large population of such people to select, and the tools to analyze individuals in detail from cradle to 'career ready', I could imagine having a group of people who would make ideal bureaucrats and police to choose from if the autism trend continues, and I see no signs of it slowing down.  Suggesting that we might be witnessing the effects of some deliberate 'herd engineering' here is pretty conspiratorial, but it has enough explanatory power to retain as a hypothesis.  At least it does in my mind since it is evident that our leadership has the basic capacity to do some pretty fucked up stuff.

Looking at the whole catastrophic climate change program we do seem to see a remarkable propensity toward blind acceptance of what is incorrectly labeled 'consensus' of those in some supposed position of authority.  Also, in my conversations with less involved but supportive friends at least, a remarkable level of ignorance on some basic stuff like CO2 concentrations and function, though they 'know' fully that anyone who doesn't buy the 'consensus of experts' is ignorant, stupid, and influenced by 'big oil' or whatever.  Censorship is also something which seems to be perfectly acceptable to this crowd (as per the title of this thread.)  On top of that, there are increasing calls for outright enforcement of certain ideas by some political leaders, and a fair percentage of the population seems not offended by such things.  Frankly, it's weird and scary.  I've long theorized that if people are denied certain kinds of religion they will seek another form as an outlet, and that's why totalitarian states frequently ban historic religions with the goal being that people will shift some of these predispositions toward projects favored by the state.  There does seem to be a correlation between agnosticism toward mainstream religious among the more active of the environmental crowd, and I observe that some of the more nasty propensities of the devout (mentioned in this paragraph) are expressed anyway but focused toward a different goal.

Hey ... this is serious stuff dude.  You shouldn't be joking about the Earth in the Balance.  Because the planet's on Fire.  Because even though the timescale keeps shifting, we are on a sliding timeframe to Doom.  And they are coming, bet your boots on it.

Global Warming Blamed for Future UFO Attacks

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/08/19/global-warming-blamed-future-ufo-attacks

Are the alarmists so scientifically bankrupt that they have to promote UFO scares to support their “boy who cried wolf” global warming scares?

According to the Guardian: “Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilization growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.”

So, who are the “scientists” making such claims? They must be some rogue crazies who believe the earth is flat and the moon landing was staged on a vacant movie lot in Arizona, right? Well, according to the Guardian the scientists are affiliated with NASA and Penn State University. Yes, our tax dollars at work.

“`Green’ aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet,” the Guardian reports.

"These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write in the study.

Maybe I should ask the r/climate mods what the readership was like, 5 years ago. Hmm. Maybe not...

Right.  And I suspect if you go back and look (lol, I am too lazy) you'll find that before the Perverted Liberal Authoritarian Controllers took over the climate forum, back when there was controversy and differing opinions, there was a far higher reader count.

That's the way it is.  Most people don't care about the hysterical alarmist climate nonsense and never have.  Look, it's a total turn off.

How many people here wouldn't walk off, if you were at a gathering/party/event and someone in the little group started talking about the Global Warming?  It's something of a bullshit, disgusting subject.  Even joking about Al Gore is disgusting.

On another level, that of human cognition, it's a quite interesting subject.  Humans seek to organize data and reduce it to simplicity.  We do that compulsively.  At this level, we can look at Warmers as seeing a rising trend line in temperatures in a chaotic system, and believing it will continue indefinitely into the future.  They predict essentially a linear slope of a phenomena based on that slope existing for a couple decades.  Then they ignore that slope not existing for two decades.  Such is the power of belief.

It's been mentioned here before, but yes, we do need to save the planet.  Man needs to prepare for various future possibilities - a supervolcano eruption, pandemics, large meteor strikes, global cooling, global warming on and on.

Focusing on just one of the Bad Futures is very, very stupid.

http://www.reddit.com/r/climate 10,184 readers? That's all?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/ 158,007 readers

Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.  (Read 97891 times)!!!!!!


 

Well, here's the pitch from the reddit subform on climate. 

http://www.reddit.com/r/climate/top/

Interestingly, in this thread the Reddit forum has been defended multiple times along the lines of "Yeah, but if you are discussing science, you can't have those deniers coming in with all their political arguments.  They'll ruin a calm discussion of science."

You know what?

I'm not seeing a great deal of "science" in the propaganda repository called the reddit climate forum.  I'm seeing pro warmer propaganda with no intelligent debate ALLOWED.


 The good news is, that pressure is growing. In fact, that relentless climate movement is starting to win big, unprecedented victories around the world, victories which are quickly reshaping the consensus view – including among investors – about how fast a clean energy future could come. It’s a movement grounded in the streets and reaching for the photovoltaic rooftops, and its thinking can be easily summarised in a mantra: Fossil freeze. Solar thaw. Keep it in the ground.

Triumph is not certain – in fact, as the steadily rising toll of floods and droughts and melting glaciers makes clear, major losses are guaranteed. But for the first time in the quarter-century since global warming became a major public issue the advantage in this struggle has begun to tilt away from the Exxons and the BPs and towards the ragtag and spread-out fossil fuel resistance, which is led by indigenous people, young people, people breathing the impossible air in front-line communities. The fight won’t wait for Paris – the fight is on every day, and on every continent.

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic





Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas.



I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

IPCC Conflict of Interest

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

Political Powerhouse

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

Human Emissions Saved Planet

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?

Celebrate Carbon Dioxide

The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.



http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

Pharrell brings "Happy" message on climate change to U.N.







UNITED NATIONS -- About 1,200 middle school children trudged through the latest snow storm to the United Nations General Assembly on Friday evening to hear hip hop singer and producer Pharrell Williams talk about climate change.

The U.N. sponsored the event, along the U.N. Foundation and MixRadio, to celebrate International Day of Happiness, established by the world organization in 2012. It transformed a normally conflict-focused, staid venue into a dramatically "happy" environment with a clear message: The next generation needs to pay attention to climate change.


"Protecting our planet is fundamental to the pursuit of human happiness," Pharrell said, telling the enthusiastic crowd, "We only have one home and there's climate change... If you don't (take) care of your home, you don't have a life, and we have to transition from climate change to climate action."

The event also served as the launch for the "World's Happiest Playlist" and a #HappySoundsLike Twitter campaign, which includes chair Cody Simpson, Stevie Wonder, Ed Sheeran, David Guetta, Rita Ora, John Legend and James Blunt. Environmentalists Philippe Cousteau and Sylvia Earle were on hand to show videos.

Just an hour before, Pharrell flipped the switch on the Empire State Building, turning the iconic building's lights yellow as part of the International Day of Happiness observance.

"The International Day of Happiness has provided an opportunity to open up a real conversation on how we take positive action to battle the real threat climate change," Robert Skinner, associate director of the U.N. Foundation's New York Office, told CBS News.

A young Brooklynite, Marquis Jamont, was there with his mom to see Pharrell, whom he described as a great person.

"Without Pharrell," Marquis said, "our planet would not survive."

A group of eight- and nine-year-olds from Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Scarsdale, N.Y., had their own messages.

"I'm from Seychelles and it's a small island, and I don't want it get flooded," said Giselle Ondieki.

Penelope Danielle Anastasia Latrique, the daughter of a U.N. staff member, goes to the Growing Up Green Charter School, which focuses on climate change.

"Pharrell is inspiring; he makes a happy day happy about the climate," she said.

Ahmad Alhendawi, the secretary-general's envoy on youth, told CBS, "What is happening in climate change is affecting young people's lives; this year is very important and the outreach that celebrities have is vital."

Although the plan was to have Pharrell speak and then dance in the General Assembly aisles, as soon as he finished, students went to the front to snap selfies with the new climate change czar and, of course, to change the world.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pharrell-brings-happy-message-on-climate-change-to-u-n/

Sounds serious. What to do ? Throw taxpayer money on more study of the problem.

The Northern Hemisphere's astronomical spring, which began at 22:45 UTC [GMT] on Friday March 20, is getting 30 seconds shorter each year due to the movement of the Earth's axis, which gives half a minute to summer each year, say researchers.

Arctic sea ice extent hits record low for winter

A recent study found that Arctic sea ice had thinned by 65% between 1975 and 2012.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31976749