Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 161. (Read 636458 times)

This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

I agree, but YOU should participate more often 

Anyone who denies Global Warming and the effect human pollution is causing, is an idiot. This forum and particularly this thread, has the highest concentration of trolls/retards that I've ever seen.

I guess our new acquaintance Salzman has fled, but just wanted to note that is proof of "all reasonable scientists" above bolded....

...is by his error a list of over 1350 published peer review articles supporting global warming skepticism....

LOL...

.....

Also, as far as global warming goes, 97% of all journal articles that are peer reviewed agree that there is indeed global warming.

The debate in these journals is not weather the Earth is warming, all reasonable scientist believe that.  The debate is whether it is fast or slow and human caused or nature caused.  http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Oregon Dept of Environmental Quality.

A minority of states have such a department with teeth, and the federal level EPA offloads work to them if they can be trusted (...to fuck over the state's citizens even worse than would the feds.)

Oregon is one of those states with a demographic which is favorable toward environmental excesses.  A bulk of the population lives in urban areas around Portland and Eugene, and this overpowering voting block gets a lot of what they want.  Pump a little Prozac into indoctrinated condo-dwellers and all kinds of unpleasant shit flows down-hill.

I really think that Oregon has more than it's share of active free-thinking individuals.  This from various observations of political history and meeting fellow Oregonians in my various points of living away from the state.  Perhaps it's the low fluoride levels...and at this point I'm only half-joking about it given the latest studies on the effects of this element on the human brain.  The trouble is that a 'free thinker' is free to think in a variety of directions, and propaganda is a powerful directing force.  Sadly, the metro areas of Oregon are one of the main centers of 'sustainability'.  For now at least.

Just curious, what is the DEQ which you mention?

Yeah, give up while you are ahead.

By the way, you know nothing about "big oil and gas".  Zero.

As you describe it it is a very evil thing.  However, Saudi oil supports US greenie environmental operations, such as anti-fracking on US soil.  Saudi and other Middle East interests have a strategy to keep the US dependent on foreign oil.

Hey, support big spending on windmills and solar, instead of real energy like fracking and nuclear....keep the US dependent on Middle East oil.

Suckers...

...
Again, I am just going look at your opening and again assume that everything else that follows is formed with an equally flawed logic. 

I would like to welcome any trolls paid to participate in this thread. You do not need to bring any facts as you get paid no matter what.

To justify your salary from al gore here are a couple of ready-to-eat-TV-dinner like phrases you could use to prove your point. Just copy paste them. No need to read them:

.....

If this is your narrative, then your narrative sucks. 

Big conservative oil and gas money = pay tons of money for people not respected in the community to lie about facts and say what you want, and then accuse the other side of taking money and lying. 

BTW, you need not bother to reply.  Spending so much time just addressing just the mere fallacies in your openings is boring me now.  I am going to unwatch this thread.   

.....
As recently as the middle of this thread I was much more on the 'warmist' side.  You could see in my initial post here some time ago that I posited that corporate influence might have some effect on the science, and that whatever the case, the same old spam from the 'denier' side could get tedious and justify the ban.  What I did NOT do was to really take a side simply because I had not gotten around to studying the issue.  Since then I have, and the hypothesis that 'climate change' is part of a larger program of theft by a certain class of powerful people has remarkable explanatory power across a broad range of observations.

Most of my friends, family, and co-workers are greenies, and some of them fairly hard-core about it.  I know they are neither bad nor stupid people.  I think they've just been had.  Even the DEQ bitch who has been hassling me

I would like to welcome any trolls paid to participate in this thread. You do not need to bring any facts as you get paid no matter what.

To justify your salary from al gore here are a couple of ready-to-eat-TV-dinner like phrases you could use to prove your point. Just copy paste them. No need to read them:



Are you getting your facts from Fox News? (that one is a classic! Please use this as often as possible!)


“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

“We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” - Professor Maurice King

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” - Christopher Manes, Earth First!


Thank you and enjoy your stay (you can even use that too!)

It is precisely oil company consortiums that fund AGW researchs...

Again, I am just going to address your opening and I am going to assume that the rest of what you say is built up on the same faulty logic.

Okay, so first, just to be clear earlier when I said "my friend gets $10,000 per article" what I really meant is.... it is me.  I am a professor, so you don't need to school me on how the game works.  I have been in it for a long time.  

Despite your delusion that the whole of academia has been bought out and all are corrupt, let me try to explain to you again how it works.

Yes, you are right there is lots of money that goes into climate science, but it will only go to the top 2-3% of researchers at the top universities.  Nobody is giving big grants for your average state school or lower.  Big grants usually only go to the big schools with big names.  And no matter how much money you think there is, there isn't that much going into it.  And next, after that money is given to the profs it isn't conditional.  Once the profs get it, its theirs.  They can publish any finding they want regardless of who gave them the money.  It isn't like the grants come under the stipulation that their findings have to meet the donor's vision or else the researcher has to pay it back.  Almost all of the profs getting big grants also have tenure.  They don't really care what result their donor wanted.

And yes some professor's make a good bit being witnesses, like about 0.5%.  The ones that do, can get paid quite well.  The other 99.5% get no gigs.  It is much like being a musician.  When you make it big, you are set, but the rest stick to their day jobs.  

The best way to make money outside of the university is a way you didn't mention.  The most common way to earn substantial cash is to become a consultant for private industry.  While I don't have any close relationships with anybody that made it to the rockstar level in academia of professional high paid witness, I do know quite a few that have gotten rich being consultants.  And of course we know that the private industry in the global warming debate that would hire said profs are the oil and gas companies.  They have very deep pockets to hire consultants.  Yet only 3% of profs are global warming deniers.

Your narrative sucks.

You remind me of Fox News.  Lie as much as you can and then accuse the other side of lying.  Stall as much as you can and then accuse the other side of stalling.  

Kill Your Pet Dog To Save World From Global Warming...
...
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/the_surprisingly_large_carbon_paw_print_of_your_beloved_pet_partner/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I do indeed for a fact get a $10,000 bonus for getting published in any international peer reviewed journal as well as all the other professors at my university.