Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 140. (Read 636456 times)

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

hehe following @junkscience uh? ^^

I have many more theories... But none are safe for work.

I would like to know what this lady has been drinking.  Because it ain't coffee that put that look on her face.

Now maybe she just sat down at the hearing and then woke up.

"OH NO!  They're going to call me out on all my LIES!  And I was having so much fun!"

Maybe that chair she sat down in is rigged with heating coils and everytime she lies they crank it up to about 300F?

Don't forget that bill nye, al gore and their ilk haven't changed their lifestyle a bit to save the planet. They need to travel all over the world, to sell their books made out of dead trees.

But YOU, you should. So are all the poor countries, being evil for burning coal and creating industries to lift up their own economy...

Yes the world is getting warmer, there used to be glaciers all over North America.

The debate isn't about the world getting warmer, the debate is about the prophets that are saying we are passing the point of no return and heading towards Venus. That is what the debate is about.

Is the planet in such dire straights that governments must seize control of all the earth to prevent its destruction???

That is what this debate is about. Make no mistake you are either a believer in the modern Noah (Bill Nye and their ilk) or you are sick of their condescension and self serving budget worship and want them all to go to hell.

No middle ground.

EPA Chief Claims Global Warming Is Putting Coffee At Risk!…

Yeah, yeah it´s a good thing you can stock up at low prices. I guess the market didn´t get the global warming memo yet.

Fox News is the most trusted national news channel:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/

from my foreigner stand, fox is more about holywood movies

EPA Chief Claims Global Warming Is Putting Coffee At Risk!…






Americans’ morning caffeine rush ultimately could be a casualty of climate change, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said Wednesday.

In a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Ms. McCarthy said the changing climate — which she believes is largely caused by human activity — puts economies, global security and food supplies at risk.

Coffee lovers also will eventually feel the effects, the EPA chief said.

“Climate change puts the world’s coffee-growing regions at risk,” Ms. McCarthy said, adding that the world must begin to weave climate-change efforts into virtually every other policy.

“Growth depends on a safe environment and a stable climate.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/11/climate-change-puts-coffee-risk-epa-chief-warns/#.VQA8674QOTI.twitter

The author of this article, Walter E. Williams, gets 100% of the "clap clap clap clap!"

 

^ BRAVO!

"If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."






"But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact," said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change.

GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: "Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system." That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth's existence.

You say, "Williams, that's not what the warmers are talking about. It's the high CO2 levels caused by mankind's industrial activities that are causing the climate change!" There's a problem with that reasoning. Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, "no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth's temperature has not budged for 18 years."

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let's look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier. He said, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct."

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking "probably the most difficult task" they have ever given themselves, "which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model." In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer's views this way: "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it's settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.


http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/03/11/global-warming-n1967847/page/full

I used to love foxnews until I cut my cable 4 years ago. After having a blast with my raspberry pi and xbmc on it I moved to an amazon fire tv with kodi installed on it this year. Beautiful thing. So I obviously scan my favorite blogs but no more TV for me. The internet is so much faster. Real time. Foxnews is too slow...

I smile every time I see "foxnews" as if used as garlic against a vampire  . It translates to "I have no logical arguments against you so... Vade Retro Satana Foxnews!"

 

I am happy for you that you have faith and beliefs.

This is a classic example of those with big engineering capabilities stealing someone else's lunch.  The 'someone else' in this instance include the 'Warmistas' who want to leverage a panic to institute 'social justice' (with some dimes ending up in their own pockets to be sure) and the neo-Malthusians who want to rid the earth of the human pestilence and thus save the planet.  Both groups are as screwed up as the various religious fundies but both have also done the heavily lifting of propagandizing a generation of the population and now the corporatists are going to reap the spoils.  I'd find it even more amusing if the lunch money did not originate initially in my own pocket.

Generally speaking, I have only slightly more concern about the geo-engineers being able to substantially shape the planetary dynamics than I do about a modest increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels doing the same.

edit: sp

meh.. kind of the cherry on top of the climate fuge cake: http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369


amusingly in my country now, mass media starts 'hinting' pieces of propaganda articles talking about the 'benefits' of geoingeneering: a/ for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere b/ for directly impact the weather (whilst spraying shit above our poor heads)

france main news show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpY_I-mEtGA
france (socialist) newspaper: http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/sciences/20150211.OBS2204/des-nuages-artificiels-pour-sauver-la-terre-du-rechauffement-climatique.html

which literally says: "artificial^TM clouds to save^TM the Earth from global warming^TM"

Is geoengineering a bad idea?

“The geoengineering clique is taking advantage of this situation
to promote their planetary technological manipulations.
Some of the most avid promoters of geoengineering have
links to the fossil fuel industries and to institutions that
have backed climate denial.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/11/is-geoengineering-a-bad-idea-climate-change

To be fair, in the ubiquitous spaghetti graphs showing how laughably fucked up the (very highly funded) climate models are, there are several outliers which are not that far off at present time.  A valuable analysis which I've not seen would be to trace the origins of these.  The origins of Dr. Mann's 'hockey stick', in contrast, have been traced to death...and paint a pretty sorry picture.

I have noticed that the Warmistas are trying to claim that their models are doing a great job at the prediction climate behavior which happened before the code was written.  Sadly that will have an impact on most people, but that speaks more to the gullibility of people who listen exclusively to NPR than it does to any particular viability of the science of climate modeling.  I mean, a fair fraction of folks in the Caribbean islands believe in voodoo but it doesn't necessarily substantiate the effectiveness of sticking pins in voodoo dolls.

Show us a single climate model that has had a reasonable amount of time to be tested empirically against real world data which has made accurate predictions about the future. Go on. Produce it. You cant because nothing of the sort exists. But i mean who needs any of those things when you can just insult people and appeal to authority and appeal to population. We aren't propagandized by fox news. I would be extremely surprised to learn that any of the frequent contributors to this thread watch fox news even semi regularly. We just reject bullshit fallacious arguments. You cant come up to us and try to emotionally manipulate us by saying things like "The rest of the world is content with the overwhelming consensus of climatologists" because we know that's a logically fallacious argument. You on the other hand don't seem to be aware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies read it. familiarize yourself with it.