Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 138. (Read 636456 times)

Well, when it ain't warmed for twenty years, and every year there more of them polar bears, and when them warmer boys are looking under every rock for that missing heat, you know it's the end times.  End times of that warmer stuff.  End of the easy money for kleptocapitalists working the solar and the windmill scams.

The search for the missing heat reminds me of some some other searches.  I'd like to see Trenberth's remake of this sketch:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9EbssUgHj4

Hmm....they suggest that there was no thermal equilibrium before the onset of "global warming", but instead a dynamic flux that had gone on for millions of years, and which had a long integration time of hundreds or thousands of years, changes the meaning of any residual heat content.  Note the "missing heat" which warmers claim may be in the deep oceans, may also simply not exist - it may have bled off to space, or never been there in the first place.  

I recall actually laughing when I first read Trenberth's ideas on the "missing heat", it was just like he was trying to chase it down - here, there, anywhere.  Planets certainly do have massive amounts of heat in their interior, that's why we have volcanos.  The idea of heat being buried in the deep oceans to me means it's gone forever, but I'm certainly not an expert in those fields - I guess I just think pressure + temperature = reactions - put heat down in the oceans, you get more solids on the ocean floor, that sort of thing.

Keep in mind that this sort of paper is followed by dozens others and usually five years later there is a clearer understanding of such an issue.  In changing the meaning of any residual heat content, this does provide evidence against an alarmist interpretation of danger from such thing.  I think that's a fair statement.  

Would you agree to that?

Yeah. Deep, as in, below 1000m. That's not the depth the scientists are talking about.
Quote from the paper:
So they try to stay neutral

Thank god the natural trend happened to be going the way that it was going. It just as easily could have gone the other way. Can you imagine if it had? Can you imagine what it would mean if the government had been handed the amount of power that it wants? Which it might have if the natural trend had happened to be warming. The fact that it happened to go the direction that it did may have saved our species from extinction. If gods were real i would thank one of them.

Whatever happened to science admitting that climate models were too complex to accurately model.  What happened to science in the 1970's claiming that a new ice age is coming?  What happened to renewed amounts of scientists claiming that again recently?  

Since insect size is a function of oxygen in the environment, and there were insects the size of cars running around at one point in time due to way higher c02 than now making plants produce more oxygen, why is less c02 than back then going to cause an apocalypse now?  If that's all it takes is a few degrees to cause some methane from the ocean floor to kill everyone on earth, a random cycle of nature would probably make that happen anyway regardless of what we do.

What happens when the Yellowstone supervolcano erupts any time now and creates nuclear winter?  Aren't things like that a bigger concern?  Or maybe World War III?  Isn't that more likely to blow up the planet first?

Piling up deep in the ocean. Yeah, and eventually it will wake up Godzilla and it will lay waste to modern civilization. Good luck, g

Warmers, as we affectionately warmly call them, have an excuse for why there has been no warming in about twenty years.  They say the heat is piling up deep in the ocean.  Through a curiosity of salt water, hotter water actually sinks, instead of rising.  Go figure.  This heat piling up way down in the ocean, these warmers say, is going to spring out and then we'll be in real big trouble.  So TAKE URGENT ACTION NOW!

Except...

 New Study Finds the Deep Oceans Cooled from 1992 to 2011 and…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/14/bad-news-for-trenberths-missing-heat-new-study-finds-the-deep-oceans-cooled-from-1992-to-2011-and/

That sounds like a reasonable analysis.  I've notice the repetition of this group of lies.  Of course it's just to justify things like banning them from Reddit, when in fact they are more knowledgeable than the Warmers.

Far as I know, wrong is wrong.  We've corrected some number of climate skeptics on particular points in this thread.  I'm too lazy to go back and find the posts, but they are there.  But the number of factual and logical errors by warmers posting in this thread outnumbers those by at least ten to one.

One thing that's a lot more troubling, though, which is somewhat at the heart of this entire matter.  Many of the "solutions" and "methods" and "mitigations" and "behavior changes" that are being shouted at you and I do not stand up to an examination at the eight grade math level.

This includes windmills, solar collectors, CFL lightbulbs, shorter showers, smaller cars, hybrid cars, electric cars,  three trashcans instead of one, and all the other crap embedded with mystical holiness of helping GAIA that you've been told.

Those are all lies.  Utterly and completely.

The only thing that would "Save the Planet" if in fact there was a serious problem with heat accumulation through a "Co2 blanket" is nuclear power.

And again, you don't need the ability to read and argue a dozen fields of science, poorly clumped together into something called "climatology" - to figure this out.  It's eighth grade math, folks.

That movie was mentioned in post #1831

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10795016

Yeah, I was looking for Merchants of Doubt but it wasn´t on YT so I forgot about it.

This torrent is seeding well.Good luck, g

http://torrenthound.atthesinema.co.uk/hash/a95db027e343ebce5cf755b7666f53f2797c6091/torrent-info/Merchants-of-Doubt-DVDRIP-XVID-AC3-ACAB

I haven't watched it yet, but I have heard of a film a month or so ago which is some sort of documentary about denialism in general.  Some fellow got together with the folks who worked PR for the tobacco industry in the mid twentieth century and I guess, according to whatever blurb I was seeing about the film, there is suggestion that the same sorts of tactics are being deployed by energy companies today in order to prevent serious carbon-regulation from coming to pass.  Does anyone know the name of this film?  Now that I recall hearing of it, I may try to find it if I can find the name.

EDIT: Merchants of Doubt is the name.

Spend some time listening to what mainstream people, and especially those who tend to be left-leaning are exposed to, and what those who take enough of an interest to follow the links to the various 'skeptical about skeptics' blogs.  It's hard not to find a paragraph which does not hammer home the idea that 'deniers' are wholly ignorant and uninterested in the 'science' and 'facts' and so on.  At least in the opening and closing frames.  As bad as it is in the climate change realm it's 10 times worse in the world of vaccine and GMO skepticism, but there is a certain signature which is hard not to notice.

Given the uniformity of this message and mode of delivery, I would be very surprised if it were not a fairly well thought out and coordinated approach to certain of the PR issues.  That may be a little conspiratorial, and similar things might legitimately be suspected of the 'denier' side I suppose, but I would not be at all surprised to find out that it is quite true in some cases.  To the best of my knowledge the 'warmist' have been caught red-handed doing some ugly things (Connolley/wikipedia, climategate, etc) while this is not the case so much with the 'deniers.'  I'll gladly evaluate any evidence of propaganda campaigns pinned to the 'denier' side.  At this point I find the 'deniers' more credible but I don't want to be chumped by anybody.

Earth has exceeded four of the nine limits for hospitable life, scientist claims








Humanity has raced past four of the boundaries keeping it hospitable to life, and we're inching close to the remaining five, an Earth resilience strategist has found.

In a paper published in Science in January 2015, Johan Rockström argues that we've already screwed up with regards to climate change, extinction of species, addition of phosphorus and nitrogen to the world's ecosystems and deforestation.

We are well within the boundaries for ocean acidification and freshwater use meanwhile, but cutting it fine with regards to emission of poisonous aerosols and stratospheric ozone depletion.

"The planet has been our best friend by buffering our actions and showing its resilience," Rockström said. "But for the first time ever, we might shift the planet from friend to foe."



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/earth-has-exceeded-four-of-the-nine-limits-for-hospitable-life-10111582.html

What on earth would incline you to think that "deniers" were not reading the research?  I don't know of any that haven't.

(2011) Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming




The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."



http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/

For sure.  And I can too.  But my point is that those pastors or whatever aren't going to be interested in hypotheses which don't already assume some facts which atheists would call straight bullshit on.  I'm just trying to promote the idea that if people are denying the scientific method then a science forum probably isn't the place to do that.

I also hear you guys that some are arguing that it's the "warmists" not the "deniers" who are being unscientific.  You may be correct, I don't know.  I do know that politics has become so involved here that unless you're reading the research yourself, it's probably had to get to the bottom of any of this.

In my own life, I can merely report that I have seen evidence that on the whole, things are warmer than they were 20 years ago (snow caps on my local mountains nearly gone, large glaciers missing).  Of course there's that other debate about the cause of these observations (human behavior driven or natural world cycle driven).  I don't want to get into all that.  I just want to emphasize that certain discussions come with a framework and discarding that framework can make your contribute decidedly unhelpful.  That's my point about religion and whatnot.  I call bullshit on virgin births and other things like that and I certainly think I'm right to do so.  However, religious people wouldn't consider that to be a helpful contribution to discussions which assume virgin births as a starting point and are trying to work out other ramifications.

Yes, I am saying that they deny the scientific method.    And many others.  You are correct that there are a bunch of parrots around who do not even understand the scientific method, but just repeat things they have heard.

Critical examination and skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method.  Well, and add a fair dose of humility to that.

I, as an atheist and a skeptic, can probably produce a far more adequate set of hypotheses regarding the birth of Jesus than someone who is constrained by dogma, fear of excommunication, roasting in hell, losing one's friends and things to do on Sunday morning, etc.

What I see happening in climate science is that any exploration which does not promote a particular view is roundly and immediately attacked by the majority.  I find the 'skeptics' to be far more flexible and open to lines of reason which could result in any outcome.  True, an outcome which happens to result in pay-check for someone running a carbon trading platform receives more skepticism, but that is an understandable reaction given the ways and means of the climate science machine and the impressive amount of baggage it has picked up in the past few decades.

In the 'denier' venues that I frequent, the rapid-fire stream of hypotho-facts from the warmist side are attacked with relish, but usually using what are distinctly principles of science.  I also don't see any calls for censorship and punishment such as those which are increasingly prevalent on the warmist side.  Nor do I see the kind of fire-and-brimstone techniques which are also highly leveraged on the warmist side.  Almost literally, amusingly enough.

In short, the assertion that 'climate science' is taking on a distinctly religious flavor seems a pretty valid (and amusing) observation and the warmist side maps to the religious wing fairly well.

I do feel a bit bad for the real scientists on the warmist side as the politician and zealots get involved and sully their work.  The precautionary principle is a tool which has a place, and it is not at all irrational to consider it for problems such as we are facing on the environmental front.  It is, however, a sharp and dangerous tool.  Having the likes of Al Gore grab it is like having a toddler grabbing and running around with one's scissors.  The appropriate way to deal with that situation is to take the scissors away and give the kid a talking to and perhaps a swat on the ass.  We see that happen from time to time (it looks like someone 'switching sides' or being to cozy with the 'deniers'...e.g., Judith Curry) but not often enough to mitigate the damage.

Ok, two replies here:

1) Gore and Nye aren't scientists themselves, they are some sort of talking heads who want to popularize science.  This is a reasonably important job imo because scientists themselves aren't really good popular communicators by training---they have other strengths (ie, science).  Gore is a politician and Nye is a tv personality.  I think it's fine for non-scientists to try to popularize and distribute scientific results but I'm not surprised if they don't actually have the skills to do properly controlled scientific experiments because, lets face it, they aren't scientists.

2) Thanks for the invite to your church but I'm not really into that kinda thing.    My point is this, imagine your pastor/priest/imam or whatever having a meeting with other pastors/priests/imams in your faith to talk about how to interpret some aspect of your scripture or doctrine or whatnot.  That is not a meeting where my opinion would be considered helpful (ie, I call bullshit on all of it).

Do you feel me?