non-scientists still denying climate change? I wonder what year it'll be when they learn what's up. ....
So there are lots of "heat waves."
But what about all the places where a "heat wave" is defined as > 77F?
Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 15. (Read 636455 times)
So there are lots of "heat waves."
But what about all the places where a "heat wave" is defined as > 77F?
Isn't it funny that as soon as we have an unseasonably hot week during the summer this is proof of global warming, but the moment your political opponent says something to the effect that global warming isn't real because of an unseasonably cold week during the winter the same people are so quick "educate" the unscrupulous rube that "that isn't how science works!".
Can someone with a twatter reply to her with that for me. I don't have the social medias because I'm not a wanglord but I really wan't someone to say that to her.
Isn't it funny that as soon as we have an unseasonably hot week during the summer this is proof of global warming, but the moment your political opponent says something to the effect that global warming isn't real because of an unseasonably cold week during the winter the same people are so quick "educate" the unscrupulous rube that "that isn't how science works!".
Can someone with a twatter reply to her with that for me. I don't have the social medias because I'm not a wanglord but I really wan't someone to say that to her.
... How long did it take until they accepted the world isn't flat?
1500 years to get the populous warmed up to the idea then 500 years of heavy shilling, lying, fraud, murder and complete subversion. Welcome to the globe my friend.
[...]
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.
Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.
The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.
The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME
Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html
You listed options that you have on exchange`s. Not all of them have same option`s,As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.
Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.
The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.
The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn’t a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In other scientific news CRYOSAT SATELLITE FINDS ARCTIC ICE INCREASED 50% IN VOLUME
Around 90 per cent of the increase is due to retention of older ice
This year’s multi-year ice is now around 30 cm thicker than last year
Experts claim increase does not indicate a reversal in long-term trends
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html
maybe there is I am not registered on all of them, someone knows this better.
Exchange like bank is a service, run buy someone else
this is why I stay away from reddit
Weather modification has been a source of intense scientific/economic interest for a long time. Basically since the local shaman used to eat mushrooms and dance around. With the effort and money pumped into the projects, who's to say that they have not had an impact on what we see here in 2018?
This guy has put together a pretty interesting timeline of the various efforts. I don't like the 'lazy load' format, but going to the timeline and scanning bottom to top gives a view of the effort he's put in:
https://weathermodificationhistory.com/
Given the amount of money/effort put into the project of scaring idiots about global
Just for the record, I offered Jim Lee a contribution in Bitcoin for this work and his work on climateviewer.org and for showing up at hearings in Washington. All three are relatively impressive to me and all of my 'charity' comes after someone has proven themselves. Unfortunately he either didn't get my e-mail, or he decided he didn't want anything to do with Bitcoin.
These negatives were meticulously processed and restored by a Wellington photography conservator
The climate change idea is another great way of marketing. We're now being afraid because 'soon, everything will become hot' yeah, but it's not because of us.
We're accused of pollution because of smoking and driving but they are testing NUCLEAR weapons, they are testing ROCKETS and stuff that we can't pollute as much as them even in a lifetime.
We're accused of pollution because of smoking and driving but they are testing NUCLEAR weapons, they are testing ROCKETS and stuff that we can't pollute as much as them even in a lifetime.
The way I see it, maybe those climate deniers mentioned something in the Reddit's science forum that they do not like or against on what they believe in. Seriously, would you let someone or keep someone close that is against you? Of course not right? So, it is only reasonable to remove and ban them from that page to also avoid conflicts.
Well they have the right to do that, since it's their forum that we are talking about. Whatever the climate deniers are saying in that forum doesn't matter anymore, whether they are right or wrong is out of the question, because it the Reddit's science forum, and only they have the right to retain who or what ever they want in their respective forum.
It is very strange to talk about what is actually already present in our lives. Science is called to carry objectivity into the world, but how can this be done if they try to forbid the dissemination of those conclusions to which it comes? 
I am against any bans. In the first one they will argue. The truth is born only in disputes. Secondly, what's the difference who says what, more importantly who does what.
....
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
But 20x the cost per kilowatt for green energy versus nuclear?
That would make the dream of the electric car replacing the nasty gasoline cars impossible.
Why can't we have nice toys like nuclear powered electric cars?
Bad cow!
Are we arguing to whom, cows or humans, the sign is for? Hmm
....
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
But 20x the cost per kilowatt for green energy versus nuclear?
That would make the dream of the electric car replacing the nasty gasoline cars impossible.
Why can't we have nice toys like nuclear powered electric cars?
Bad cow!
....
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
I much prefer living in a valley with a coal powered plant and watching my family all die from lung diseases
Can I watch too?
....
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
I much prefer living in a valley with a coal powered plant and watching my family all die from lung diseases
....
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
But 20x the cost per kilowatt for green energy versus nuclear?
That would make the dream of the electric car replacing the nasty gasoline cars impossible.
Why can't we have nice toys like nuclear powered electric cars?
Bad cow!
Cows can't read.
They can't read but they don't want to go to Mars. That's smart.
....
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
Yeah but they are 20 times greeeeener and we all love Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise
But 20x the cost per kilowatt for green energy versus nuclear?
That would make the dream of the electric car replacing the nasty gasoline cars impossible.
Why can't we have nice toys like nuclear powered electric cars?
Bad cow!
Cows can't read.
Jump to: