Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 156. (Read 636458 times)
Did you read any of those comments.
The problem with this line of reasoning is incorrect attribution of cause in whole or part.
Consider the following as a logical problem.
In the 19th century, sea level rose about two inches.
In the 20th century, sea level rose about six inches.
CONCLUSION: Man is causing the sea level to rise!!!!
Really?
The official sea level data are fiddled by an artifice known as the “global isostatic adjustment”. The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made.
The excuse for this overblown addition, which accounts for a very large fraction of the difference between the satellite and tide-gauge records, is that the land is still rising and the sea sinking because of the transfer of miles-thick ice from the land to the oceans that ended 9000 years ago. Therefore, the story goes, sea level would be falling were it not for global warming.
Hey presto! Sea level rise is instantly made to accelerate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1-figure-1.html
***
In 1985 these alarmists were predicting massive sea level rise BY TODAY. They were proved wrong. They tried it again, and again, and again. Each time they have been proved wrong.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/david-kear-former-director-general-nz-dsir-says-a-non-existent-threat/
Consider the following as a logical problem.
In the 19th century, sea level rose about two inches.
In the 20th century, sea level rose about six inches.
CONCLUSION: Man is causing the sea level to rise!!!!
Really?
The official sea level data are fiddled by an artifice known as the “global isostatic adjustment”. The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made.
The excuse for this overblown addition, which accounts for a very large fraction of the difference between the satellite and tide-gauge records, is that the land is still rising and the sea sinking because of the transfer of miles-thick ice from the land to the oceans that ended 9000 years ago. Therefore, the story goes, sea level would be falling were it not for global warming.
Hey presto! Sea level rise is instantly made to accelerate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1-figure-1.html
***
In 1985 these alarmists were predicting massive sea level rise BY TODAY. They were proved wrong. They tried it again, and again, and again. Each time they have been proved wrong.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/david-kear-former-director-general-nz-dsir-says-a-non-existent-threat/
What Reddit's moderators have actually banned is anything and anyone they don't like. For example, people that could make them look silly or stupid - those'd have to go first.
When they can't even define "denier", that's a feature instead of a bug because they can claim anyone they want to ban is a "denier."
I don't know much about reddit and am not a regular user, but I have observed wikipedia over the years and they are undoubtedly corrupted on a range of politically charged subjects. Although I had one of those gut feelings, I first really took notice when some people were caught red-handed coordinating to promote pro-zionist material at the expense of the many subjects which can be related. In my own use of the platform (as a casual reader) I've noticed it significantly in the fields of 'naked short selling', vaccination science, and climate change. Probably some other things I'm forgetting about as well. I was inclined to donate a long time ago, but that inclination was utterly quashed by these observations.
I have long theorized that Yahoo! and Google's news aggregators are among the most valuable propaganda platforms in the history of humankind, and platforms such as wikipedia, snoops, and reddit are not far behind. (In the industry these things generally knows as 'properties' used in the same way as ownership of lands.) The extreme value of such property will naturally lead to extreme interest from those to whom such things are of value. Not surprising to see them corrupted no matter what the trajectory of the platforms or disposition of the 'owners'. And the owner/manager folks of these types of 'properties' tend to at least start out with a left-leaning disposition by the nature of the industry. I personally have swam in several of these seas from time to time so I'm confident enough to state this.
One of the earlier things I ran across when I finally took the plunge into trying to understand climate change was this article:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
I started my research by trying to figure out where I could get quality information and by the time I started I had already become pretty aware that this would be tricky. That's probably why I happened across this article early.
Frankly the problem for low grade propagandists posing as scientists like Connelly is that the planet and the physics of nature just isn't going with their program. The CERN Cloud experiment, for example. The last 20 years of temperatures.
But leave Connelly out of you. He's just a little man. You mean you don't agree with really deep thinkers, like Ted Turner?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54
TED TURNER: Not doing it will be catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there'll be no more corn grown. Not doing it is suicide.....
Now I have it on good terms that these small men flapping their small and weak arms are unusually agitated these day, very unusual....
http://www.theonion.com/video/nations-climatologists-exhibiting-strange-behavior,21009/
What Reddit's moderators have actually banned is anything and anyone they don't like. For example, people that could make them look silly or stupid - those'd have to go first.
When they can't even define "denier", that's a feature instead of a bug because they can claim anyone they want to ban is a "denier."
I don't know much about reddit and am not a regular user, but I have observed wikipedia over the years and they are undoubtedly corrupted on a range of politically charged subjects. Although I had one of those gut feelings, I first really took notice when some people were caught red-handed coordinating to promote pro-zionist material at the expense of the many subjects which can be related. In my own use of the platform (as a casual reader) I've noticed it significantly in the fields of 'naked short selling', vaccination science, and climate change. Probably some other things I'm forgetting about as well. I was inclined to donate a long time ago, but that inclination was utterly quashed by these observations.
I have long theorized that Yahoo! and Google's news aggregators are among the most valuable propaganda platforms in the history of humankind, and platforms such as wikipedia, snoops, and reddit are not far behind. (In the industry these things generally knows as 'properties' used in the same way as ownership of lands.) The extreme value of such property will naturally lead to extreme interest from those to whom such things are of value. Not surprising to see them corrupted no matter what the trajectory of the platforms or disposition of the 'owners'. And the owner/manager folks of these types of 'properties' tend to at least start out with a left-leaning disposition by the nature of the industry. I personally have swam in several of these seas from time to time so I'm confident enough to state this.
One of the earlier things I ran across when I finally took the plunge into trying to understand climate change was this article:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
I started my research by trying to figure out where I could get quality information and by the time I started I had already become pretty aware that this would be tricky. That's probably why I happened across this article early.
It is good to see the debate come around to pollution instead of global warming.
The Global Warming Campaign is an attempt to set a toll for absolution granted by the greedy masquerading as the protectorate of humanity.
Nobody wants to talk about pollution anymore though, they'd rather lay a carpet over a big pile of dirt and then raise the rent for plush accommodations.
If the discussion were about pollution, we'd have solid facts with which to debate. It seems that those in charge don't want to have that debate as pollution can list actual victims. Global warming is typical smoke and mirrors behavior, preventing logic from entering the debate.
The Global Warming Campaign is an attempt to set a toll for absolution granted by the greedy masquerading as the protectorate of humanity.
Nobody wants to talk about pollution anymore though, they'd rather lay a carpet over a big pile of dirt and then raise the rent for plush accommodations.
If the discussion were about pollution, we'd have solid facts with which to debate. It seems that those in charge don't want to have that debate as pollution can list actual victims. Global warming is typical smoke and mirrors behavior, preventing logic from entering the debate.
The main topic of the discussion here is:
Is it true that science is settled and the cause of global warming is 100% man made, nothing else?
No one here is for pollution. Pollution is bad. That plastic bag stuck in my tree across my window for years is proof enough, if I knew the world only through that view. We can manage pollution made from our industrial societies as we created it. We decided pushing for a carbon tax was a priority instead, because the science was settled by 97% of scientists...
This is what my thread is about. Of course people a free to create another thread
Sorry for the attempted hijack attempt and thanks for not removing my post.
Couple of interesting points here:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_POLL_ENVIRONMENT_DISCONNECT?SITE=MTBIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
60% are concerned about 'pollution'
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/11/Poll-Only-1-Percent-of-Americans-Cite-Global-Warming-as-Top-Concern
1% are concerned about 'climate change'
What we have here is a disservice to victims of pollution enacted through an endless debate on 'climate change'.
Quote
But Reddit hasn't banned anti-polluters, just anti-global-warmers.
I believe this makes Reddit moderation useful idiot tools for evil intentions.
When they can't even define "denier", that's a feature instead of a bug because they can claim anyone they want to ban is a "denier."
It is good to see the debate come around to pollution instead of global warming.
The Global Warming Campaign is an attempt to set a toll for absolution granted by the greedy masquerading as the protectorate of humanity.
Nobody wants to talk about pollution anymore though, they'd rather lay a carpet over a big pile of dirt and then raise the rent for plush accommodations.
If the discussion were about pollution, we'd have solid facts with which to debate. It seems that those in charge don't want to have that debate as pollution can list actual victims. Global warming is typical smoke and mirrors behavior, preventing logic from entering the debate.
The Global Warming Campaign is an attempt to set a toll for absolution granted by the greedy masquerading as the protectorate of humanity.
Nobody wants to talk about pollution anymore though, they'd rather lay a carpet over a big pile of dirt and then raise the rent for plush accommodations.
If the discussion were about pollution, we'd have solid facts with which to debate. It seems that those in charge don't want to have that debate as pollution can list actual victims. Global warming is typical smoke and mirrors behavior, preventing logic from entering the debate.
The main topic of the discussion here is:
Is it true that science is settled and the cause of global warming is 100% man made, nothing else?
No one here is for pollution. Pollution is bad. That plastic bag stuck in my tree across my window for years is proof enough, if I knew the world only through that view. We can manage pollution made from our industrial societies as we created it. We decided pushing for a carbon tax was a priority instead, because the science was settled by 97% of scientists...
This is what my thread is about. Of course people a free to create another thread
Sorry for the attempted hijack attempt and thanks for not removing my post.
Couple of interesting points here:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_POLL_ENVIRONMENT_DISCONNECT?SITE=MTBIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
60% are concerned about 'pollution'
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/11/Poll-Only-1-Percent-of-Americans-Cite-Global-Warming-as-Top-Concern
1% are concerned about 'climate change'
What we have here is a disservice to victims of pollution enacted through an endless debate on 'climate change'.
Quote
But Reddit hasn't banned anti-polluters, just anti-global-warmers.
I believe this makes Reddit moderation useful idiot tools for evil intentions.
...
oh wow. such scientific irrefutable proof. pardon me for not believingTM.
what about people largely deciding to believe in god? alas there is more scientifical proof of its existence (ie. bigbang, biogenesis et al..) ^^
oh wow. such scientific irrefutable proof. pardon me for not believingTM.
what about people largely deciding to believe in god? alas there is more scientifical proof of its existence (ie. bigbang, biogenesis et al..) ^^
GORATHON!
You are welcome whether you BELIEVE IN GORE or not!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/the-gore-a-thon-on-wuwt/
It's so funny reading this. You guys are like all the hardcore conspiracy theorists mumbling on about an issue already largely decided as true. Just reading the complete bullshit and insanity in your posts is interesting... tsk tsk.
Three years ago, Realclimate.org had readership about 2x that of Wattsupwiththat.com.
For those who don't know these sites -
Realclimate = Hysterical warmers posing as scientists and some hysterical-warming-scientists (Hansen, Mann, et al)
WattsUpWithThat = Deniers, skeptics, whatever they are
Today, Watts has 5x the readers compared to Realclimate.
I mean, like...
Dude.
Where's that warming?
It's so funny reading this. You guys are like all the hardcore conspiracy theorists mumbling on about an issue already largely decided as true. Just reading the complete bullshit and insanity in your posts is interesting... tsk tsk.
oh wow. such scientific irrefutable proof. pardon me for not believingTM.
what about people largely deciding to believe in god? alas there is more scientifical proof of its existence (ie. bigbang, biogenesis et al..) ^^
.....The physical science is complex enough that I doubt I will ever have a 'firmly' held belief on it, but I have a high bar here. The social and political science behind it is much simpler and, alas, probably more relevant to the actual 'problem' part of the problem. Here my belief that there is a lot of hucksterism involved is firming up nicely.
Yeah, it is literally 8th grade level to debunk the ridiculous political-funding concepts being pushed to "help" or "solve" global warming.Windmills, solar power plants, CFL bulbs, all a waste of time and money.
It's so funny reading this. You guys are like all the hardcore conspiracy theorists mumbling on about an issue already largely decided as true. Just reading the complete bullshit and insanity in your posts is interesting... tsk tsk.
I invite you to post on this thread until your lottery number for bear feeding comes up.And even if we train them in the hunting fields like deer, using timed release mechanisms to dispense food at set intervals, there are only so many rabid environmentalists to be used as fodder. All too soon the editorial staffs of reddit, grist and media matters would be depleted, and those of the huffington post half gone.
Would you have taken more of your time scrutinizing PERSONALLY every aspect of what the facts are regarding AGW, if not for the existence of this thread? No matter your prior conviction (as in firmly held belief, not a past crime
)?Actually, yes, I would have. My participation in this thread is largely an artifact of bitcointalk.org being among the very few social media outlets that I indulge in at this time. That is to say, AGW is a subject I happen to be intently interested in at the moment and it has little if anything to do with this thread. I'm very happy that you created it and contribute interesting things to it regularly however.
I would also note that the relatively content-less and mindless inputs of our thread friends on the 'panic now' side of things are well represented (and regrettable) on both sides of the argument but I have to say that they are weighted to the 'warmist' side across the spectrum. I could be sampling poorly however. Probably if I followed the 'mainstream' right-wing stuff I would find come-in-behind class material well represented but from the 'denial' side of the argument. The more climate-study centered of the dedicated skeptic sites have some of this class of stuff, but not a lot which is not at least mixed with some more valuable material.
Edit: Lemme also say that I had no 'firmly held belief' until I had the time and interest to actually study things. The physical science is complex enough that I doubt I will ever have a 'firmly' held belief on it, but I have a high bar here. The social and political science behind it is much simpler and, alas, probably more relevant to the actual 'problem' part of the problem. Here my belief that there is a lot of hucksterism involved is firming up nicely.
It's so funny reading this. You guys are like all the hardcore conspiracy theorists mumbling on about an issue already largely decided as true. Just reading the complete bullshit and insanity in your posts is interesting... tsk tsk.
As long as you keep reading this thread and comment on it, it is a success. We need all the clicks including yours to keep this thread alive.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your up and cuming from the behind comments...
One of the (many) things I recently read regarding climate change was this article
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/01/are-polar-bear-researchers-blinded-by-belief-or-acting-dishonestly/
It's worth checking out the link just to see the pics of that fat-ass bear. 218lbs -> 908lbs in 4 months. I sort of knew that certain bears can put on weight quickly (which makes sense in some environments) but I didn't know it could happen that fast.
The rest of the story is the same theme I've been reading over and over and over whether it's tree rings or butterflys; scientists with an ecological bent behaving badly. Obviously the stories I've been reading are written by 'skeptics' or whatever, but the evidence they bring to the table seems pretty strong. I'm actually kind of shocked by this. If I were a scientist I am very sure that I would not twist research whether I thought it would lead to a better world, whether I thought it would bring more grant money, or whether anything else. I just assumed that a heavy majority of scientists would do the same. It's dawning on me that I might have mis-estimated
Another thing I am learning in my looking into this stuff is that a lot of the 'skeptics' are hardly evil conservative hard right-winger types. Most of them are not one-tracked. One of them spends other parts of his time arguing for gay marriage (or some such.) Another arguing strongly on the liberal side of race issues. McIntyre in his speech at Heartland said straight-up that he didn't have philosophical issues with governments taking actions on things like energy issues. And Dyson has alway leaned toward the liberal end of the spectrum. Before I really started digging, I bought the idea that 'deniers' were evil right-wingers hook, line, and sinker. Now it seems to me that unifying characteristic is mostly that they are interested and honest about things. At least the techie types.
It is true (so far) that the pundit types are more drawn from the right-wing areas. I do hope to see that change.
---
Oh, one more thing. The person who leaked the climategate e-mails (aka 'Mr. FOIA') released the third tranche with a message that I think everyone who is even mildly interested in this stuff should read. I'll be forking over some BTC to him/her one of these days.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/climategate-iii-the-password-is-out/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/01/are-polar-bear-researchers-blinded-by-belief-or-acting-dishonestly/
It's worth checking out the link just to see the pics of that fat-ass bear. 218lbs -> 908lbs in 4 months. I sort of knew that certain bears can put on weight quickly (which makes sense in some environments) but I didn't know it could happen that fast.
The rest of the story is the same theme I've been reading over and over and over whether it's tree rings or butterflys; scientists with an ecological bent behaving badly. Obviously the stories I've been reading are written by 'skeptics' or whatever, but the evidence they bring to the table seems pretty strong. I'm actually kind of shocked by this. If I were a scientist I am very sure that I would not twist research whether I thought it would lead to a better world, whether I thought it would bring more grant money, or whether anything else. I just assumed that a heavy majority of scientists would do the same. It's dawning on me that I might have mis-estimated
Another thing I am learning in my looking into this stuff is that a lot of the 'skeptics' are hardly evil conservative hard right-winger types. Most of them are not one-tracked. One of them spends other parts of his time arguing for gay marriage (or some such.) Another arguing strongly on the liberal side of race issues. McIntyre in his speech at Heartland said straight-up that he didn't have philosophical issues with governments taking actions on things like energy issues. And Dyson has alway leaned toward the liberal end of the spectrum. Before I really started digging, I bought the idea that 'deniers' were evil right-wingers hook, line, and sinker. Now it seems to me that unifying characteristic is mostly that they are interested and honest about things. At least the techie types.
It is true (so far) that the pundit types are more drawn from the right-wing areas. I do hope to see that change.
---
Oh, one more thing. The person who leaked the climategate e-mails (aka 'Mr. FOIA') released the third tranche with a message that I think everyone who is even mildly interested in this stuff should read. I'll be forking over some BTC to him/her one of these days.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/climategate-iii-the-password-is-out/
Would you have taken more of your time scrutinizing PERSONALLY every aspect of what the facts are regarding AGW, if not for the existence of this thread? No matter your prior conviction (as in firmly held belief, not a past crime
)?
It's so funny reading this. You guys are like all the hardcore conspiracy theorists mumbling on about an issue already largely decided as true. Just reading the complete bullshit and insanity in your posts is interesting... tsk tsk.
One of the (many) things I recently read regarding climate change was this article
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/01/are-polar-bear-researchers-blinded-by-belief-or-acting-dishonestly/
It's worth checking out the link just to see the pics of that fat-ass bear. 218lbs -> 908lbs in 4 months. I sort of knew that certain bears can put on weight quickly (which makes sense in some environments) but I didn't know it could happen that fast.
The rest of the story is the same theme I've been reading over and over and over whether it's tree rings or butterflys; scientists with an ecological bent behaving badly. Obviously the stories I've been reading are written by 'skeptics' or whatever, but the evidence they bring to the table seems pretty strong. I'm actually kind of shocked by this. If I were a scientist I am very sure that I would not twist research whether I thought it would lead to a better world, whether I thought it would bring more grant money, or whether anything else. I just assumed that a heavy majority of scientists would do the same. It's dawning on me that I might have mis-estimated
Another thing I am learning in my looking into this stuff is that a lot of the 'skeptics' are hardly evil conservative hard right-winger types. Most of them are not one-tracked. One of them spends other parts of his time arguing for gay marriage (or some such.) Another arguing strongly on the liberal side of race issues. McIntyre in his speech at Heartland said straight-up that he didn't have philosophical issues with governments taking actions on things like energy issues. And Dyson has alway leaned toward the liberal end of the spectrum. Before I really started digging, I bought the idea that 'deniers' were evil right-wingers hook, line, and sinker. Now it seems to me that unifying characteristic is mostly that they are interested and honest about things. At least the techie types.
It is true (so far) that the pundit types are more drawn from the right-wing areas. I do hope to see that change.
---
Oh, one more thing. The person who leaked the climategate e-mails (aka 'Mr. FOIA') released the third tranche with a message that I think everyone who is even mildly interested in this stuff should read. I'll be forking over some BTC to him/her one of these days.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/climategate-iii-the-password-is-out/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/01/are-polar-bear-researchers-blinded-by-belief-or-acting-dishonestly/
It's worth checking out the link just to see the pics of that fat-ass bear. 218lbs -> 908lbs in 4 months. I sort of knew that certain bears can put on weight quickly (which makes sense in some environments) but I didn't know it could happen that fast.
The rest of the story is the same theme I've been reading over and over and over whether it's tree rings or butterflys; scientists with an ecological bent behaving badly. Obviously the stories I've been reading are written by 'skeptics' or whatever, but the evidence they bring to the table seems pretty strong. I'm actually kind of shocked by this. If I were a scientist I am very sure that I would not twist research whether I thought it would lead to a better world, whether I thought it would bring more grant money, or whether anything else. I just assumed that a heavy majority of scientists would do the same. It's dawning on me that I might have mis-estimated
Another thing I am learning in my looking into this stuff is that a lot of the 'skeptics' are hardly evil conservative hard right-winger types. Most of them are not one-tracked. One of them spends other parts of his time arguing for gay marriage (or some such.) Another arguing strongly on the liberal side of race issues. McIntyre in his speech at Heartland said straight-up that he didn't have philosophical issues with governments taking actions on things like energy issues. And Dyson has alway leaned toward the liberal end of the spectrum. Before I really started digging, I bought the idea that 'deniers' were evil right-wingers hook, line, and sinker. Now it seems to me that unifying characteristic is mostly that they are interested and honest about things. At least the techie types.
It is true (so far) that the pundit types are more drawn from the right-wing areas. I do hope to see that change.
---
Oh, one more thing. The person who leaked the climategate e-mails (aka 'Mr. FOIA') released the third tranche with a message that I think everyone who is even mildly interested in this stuff should read. I'll be forking over some BTC to him/her one of these days.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/climategate-iii-the-password-is-out/
Carlin would have made a truly outstanding senator.
Jump to: