Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 158. (Read 636458 times)

For N+1 phenomena in a chaotic system, N hypotheses can be promulgated which "make a lot of sense qualitatively".  The problem is one of cherry picking which of those hypotheses are presented in accordance with the desired narrative, instead of simply enlightening more people about the actual nature of chaotic systems.

It may be in many cases, that there is resistance to the concept of a mathematically chaotic system, that it is terrifying and against worldviews which are controllable, said worldviews being desirable for those of certain inclinations.

There is nothing particularly wrong with this hypothesis.  It makes a lot of sense qualitatively.  To me at least, and certainly to the level necessary to 'believe that something might' be' blahing blah, blah, blah...

So then there is nothing wrong being a AGW skeptic, if those warmists created a belief system they follow blindly   

There is nothing particularly wrong with this hypothesis.  It makes a lot of sense qualitatively.  To me at least, and certainly to the level necessary to 'believe that something might' be' blahing blah, blah, blah...

Why Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Doesn't Mean Climate Change Isn't Happening  

mathematical proof: (-1) x (-1) = +1 (!!!)

http://www.businessinsider.com/antarctic-sea-ice-climate-change-2014-12
believe^TM

Antarctic sea ice reached a record high this year, topping 20 million square kilometers (nearly 8 million square miles) in September — a milestone it hadn't touched since 1979.

It's a fact climate change deniers are fond of repeating. If the planet is warming, shouldn't sea ice be melting away rather than growing?

t's true that the phenomenon is a confusing one — but it's no proof that climate change isn't happening. In fact, scientists believe that climate change is actually responsible for the strange events down in the Antarctic. Walt Meier, a scientist from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, explains how this is possible in a new video from Science@NASA.
The first thing to note is that sea ice and land ice are two completely different things. Sea ice is simply frozen ocean water, which forms a layer of ice on top of the sea. Land ice originates on land, forming from compacted snow to form glaciers and ice sheets. Land ice melting into the oceans is what causes sea levels to rise.

While sea ice has been steadily growing in the Antarctic, land ice has actually been shrinking. In fact, a new NASA report shows that the melting rate of land ice in West Antarctica, the fastest-melting region on the continent, has tripled during the last 10 years. Researchers found that between 1992 and 2013, the region lost an average of 83 gigatons of ice every year.

Meier believes all this melting land ice might actually be causing the increase in sea ice. As glaciers melt, they pour cold freshwater into the ocean. Freshwater is easier to freeze than salty seawater, so the influx from the melting glaciers could be adding to Antarctica's sea ice.

LIMA - Finance earmarked for poor countries to reduce emissions and fund adaptation projects has reached over US$650 billion, according to a new United Nations assessment report.

About $40 billion to $175 billion a year was spent on poorer nations in 2011-2012 for climate-related projects, according to the report of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Standing Committee on Finance.

Finance to aid developing countries adapt to the changing climate is one of the sticking points being discussed here in Lima, where more than 190 countries are trying to hammer out the framework of a climate deal ahead of the major Paris conference in 2015.

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres said at the launch of the report that the exact amount of the aid could be higher due to the “complexity of defining climate finance” particularly for adaptation and energy efficiency. She hopes that the report will inspire negotiators to come up with a meaningful climate deal.

“Climate finance is already flowing and will continue to be channeled to the most vulnerable countries with the most vulnerable population,” Figueres said during the press conference here. “These numbers are encouraging and give us a sense of hope, although the fact is that climate finance needs to be in the trillions if we are going to get where we need to be.”

The report shows that around 95 percent of global total climate finance is spent on mitigation or cutting emissions, and only 5 percent was spent for adaptation projects.

Figueres, however, said the proposed $100-billion budget under the Green Climate Fund being pledged by rich countries, to help poorer countries adapt to the changing climate, is “a very small sum.”

"We are talking here about trillions of dollars that need to flow into the transformation at the global level. The $100-billion GCF is a very small sum,” Figueres said, adding that almost $90 trillion will be flowing in various climate-related infrastructure projects over the next 15 years.

For those of you paying attention to the climate stuff, one of the current things going on is that one Dr. Michael Mann, who came up with the famous 'hockey stick' chart which launched his career, is suing for libel one Mark Steyn who is a sharp witted and very funny right wing commentator.

The case is interesting for a number of reasons many of which have little to do with climate change.  To wit, it has provoked amicus briefs from a wide range of parties (most specifically including the ACLU) and every one of them has been in support of Steyn (or actually in support of other defendants who are lobbying for dismissal since Steyn seems to have a strong desire to have the proceedings progress to trial.)

Here's one fairly recent link for those who might want to follow things.

  http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/24/mark-steyn-to-d-c-court-for-defamation-hearing-you-wont-want-to-miss-this/

By all accounts Dr. Mann is a thin-skinned douche who can and does dish out invective but has a hard time taking it.  To quote the boxer Kostya Tszyu, "I'm not respect this."  This particular libel suit resulted from Steyn relaying someone elses' observation about Mann (who is a prof at Penn State and, in the wake of the climategate scandal, underwent some supposed investigation by that school for his possible malfeasance...and was cleared):


I thought this was wildly amusing and would have no matter which side of the climate change argument I was on.

For those of you paying attention to the climate stuff, one of the current things going on is that one Dr. Michael Mann, who came up with the famous 'hockey stick' chart which launched his career, is suing for libel one Mark Steyn who is a sharp witted and very funny right wing commentator.

The case is interesting for a number of reasons many of which have little to do with climate change.  To wit, it has provoked amicus briefs from a wide range of parties (most specifically including the ACLU) and every one of them has been in support of Steyn (or actually in support of other defendants who are lobbying for dismissal since Steyn seems to have a strong desire to have the proceedings progress to trial.)

Here's one fairly recent link for those who might want to follow things.

  http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/24/mark-steyn-to-d-c-court-for-defamation-hearing-you-wont-want-to-miss-this/

By all accounts Dr. Mann is a thin-skinned douche who can and does dish out invective but has a hard time taking it.  To quote the boxer Kostya Tszyu, "I'm not respect this."  This particular libel suit resulted from Steyn relaying someone elses' observation about Mann (who is a prof at Penn State and, in the wake of the climategate scandal, underwent some supposed investigation by that school for his possible malfeasance...and was cleared):


I thought this was wildly amusing and would have no matter which side of the climate change argument I was on.

"the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

And that is why you are welcome to post here as much as you like, even if all one's warmist theories could be based on 2nd grade insults

(NOT saying it was the case here, to the contrary.)

Climate deniers are annoying to listen (or read) basically because the stream is moving the other way, but it's surprisingly dictatoring to censor people based on their opinion if they haven't broken the rules of civilized conversation.

I dunno.  Having just watched Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, I'm thinking, kill all apes.

Kill all humans now seem to be his solution 

I believe this to be BEYOND suspicious and insanely crazy to be that confident  . That is why I highlighted it in bold.

We'll fix any and all comments of that sort.  We'll just send you and all the children to school...