Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 162. (Read 636443 times)

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!)

don't forget about beef.

You see, some cultures ... primative ones ... eat dogs.  Now here in Texas, we eat beef.  It's a proven fact (the science is settled) that those black Angus, or other high quality cattle produce the best steaks.  It's a bad day, and a nightmare night, if you don't get a prime level steak.  After all, we know the high marbling of the USDA Prime quality is the absolute worst for global warming.  So we do our best to eat those up.  Just think one day without one (or two) is the worst for the planet.  I stay up all night wrackd with guilt, if I go for USDA choice or select.  Doing less to Save_the_Planet.

A blue whale's only function on this planet is to eat and eat tons and tons and defecates in the ocean. None stop. Somebody should start calculating a whale's carbon fin print...

Well if this logic applies to dogs than surely it applies to wolves also. Wolves eat meat. Oh and tigers. We better get rid of those also. Orcas too. I wonder if this guy supports reducing the tiger population even further inorder to protect the environment. Something tells me probably not.

SO for starters.....let's stop the lying, okay?

We've already outed on this thread two separate "Paid Trolls."  Basically just by being polite and patient with them.

Okay, I also have taught college and engaged in research, and your reasonings and logic frankly don't impress me.  I've highlighted the blatantly illogical parts of your narrative and some of the blatant lies which are politically rooted.

If you are a prof you would need to ratchet up the quality of your writing, produce logical arguments that will withstand the opposition, at least holding their own, and eliminate the stupid references to Fox News and the like.

We've heard all those before.  Just for grins would you like to discuss Evil Exxon?  Polar bears?  Baffin bay whale bones?  Senator Inhoff?  Oxygen isotope level proxies?  Yanoff?   Miraculous metastocizing modeling by mediocre men?   I'm sure you have lots of evil oil-loving targets that worry you day and night.  How about Fracking?  Climategate?  The Scary, scary "Arctic Vortex."  Upper atmospheric emission/absorption?  Quantum mechanics of o-c bond?  Penquin barbecues?

Meanwhile, we're sitting on a planet that has not warmed in just about 20 years.  Isn't that nice?  Now let's get to it.  You can Gruber climate science, I will simply refute your arguments.  Likely by referring you to the section of this thread where exactly what you claim has been refuted previously.  Dogma does tend to the repetitive.

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...





Last week President Obama announced a historic climate change agreement with Chinese president Xi Jinping. Aimed at drastically curtailing carbon emissions into the atmosphere, the goal is to rein in the carbon footprints of the planet’s two major polluters, the U.S. and China.

I wonder if the agreement contains anything about carbon paw prints. While humans and their ravenous appetite for growth remain the primary drivers of climate change and the accompanying specter of climate catastrophe, pets have a surprising negative impact of their own. Bowser and Mittens may be your best friends, but with around one billion pet dogs and cats in the world, eating billions of pounds of canned meat a year producing half a billion pounds of waste daily, Mother Nature might just consider them to be—after humans—Public Enemy Number Two.

Cats and dogs eat meat-based diets, and we all know that is the most energy intensive diet there is. Then there is the staggering amount of bacteria-laden fecal material these beloved creatures produce. American dogs alone are responsible for 10 million tons of waste a year. Can anything be done to make our pets more planet-friendly?

The Carbon Paw Print

You consider yourself an environmentalist and are considering ditching that gas-guzzling SUV you bought a few years ago in order to reduce your carbon footprint. You might want to think of ditching Bowser instead. An average-sized dog consumes about 360 pounds of meat in a year and about 210 pounds of cereal. Taking into account the amount of land it takes to generate that amount of food and the energy used, that makes your dog quite the carbon hound. A 2009 study by New Zealand’s Victoria University of Wellington concluded that pet dogs have carbon paw prints double that of a typical SUV. John Barrett of the Stockholm Environment Institute, in York, Great Britain, confirmed the results of the New Zealand study. “Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat,” Barrett told New Scientist Magazine.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/the_surprisingly_large_carbon_paw_print_of_your_beloved_pet_partner/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

What a remarkably stunning degree of ignorance, and also an exact match for the message which is hammered home in the various media.

You seem utterly unaware of how grants fund a great deal of academic research (and the funding in the field of 'climate science' is enormous.)  You also seem unaware that many professors make a good bit of their income (a majority in some cases) providing services such as being expert witnesses.  This is the case with one of my relatives.  There is nothing wrong with that, but there could be in some circumstances absent proper procedures including transparency.

I'll bet that you believe that banks take depositor's money and lend it out and that is how they stay in business.  Sounds nice and clean, but it is almost completely not true and understanding things on the simple public consumption level leads to a similarly defective understanding of the larger world.

If you are comfortable with your current view of the climate issue I would suggest you NOT dig into the climate-gate material beyond what your favorite sources tell you should think about it.  Indeed, you sound like you may be so programmed with 'new science' principles that what us old timer's consider to be fraud is actually just better science performing the greater-good duties that science should perform.

This article is correct.  It says the same thing that I said earlier. 


Basically, everyone knows it is heating up.  That is a fact.  The 97% agree on that.  What is a bit confusing is to "why" and "how much".  Some say nature, some say humans are the main cause.  But almost all of the 97% say it is a mixture.  They just disagree upon how much it is mixed up.  Some say it will be a little bit of a problem, some say it will be a big problem, but most of the 97% agree that sooner or later there will be problems of some sort.

There is no conspiracy by professors to lie to the world about their research.  

This is how the university works.  The students give money to the university and the university gives money to the professors.  Professors don't answer to anybody but the university president and often barely even answer to him/her.  Some of these profs are conservative and some of which are liberal, just like the rest of America. (though in academia there is a more of a liberal slant)  

If you think the professors are acting out of greed when they publish, you certainly have that part right.  The more they publish, the more they get paid.  It is that simple.  It really doesn't matter what they publish.  All they have to do is find facts that others haven't found or at least fake it well enough to fool their peers and they will get extra money.  These professors aren't all in a mass conspiracy to hide the truth and in doing so willing to sacrifice their paychecks.  They have houses and mortgages and kids too just like everybody else.  One friend on mine gets a $10,000 bonus for each good article in a reputable journal he publishes.  

This is how it works. They all on an individual level just want to get paid just like the rest of us.  And to that extent the academic system while having its many faults is still kind of working to generally discover the truth.  The fierce competition among the talent to be the next person with the best truth results in said victor getting paid the most.  It is constantly a race to be the next person to add the next fact.  And yes, this does lead to lots of individual cases where people lie or in haste make mistakes, but it just doesn't simply result in 97% of the professors lying in a big mass conspiracy in peer reviewed journals.

Just so you know what a peer reviewed journal is, when an article is submitted to a journal, a well respected team of academics in that field all read it and decide whether it has any new contribution.  They then have to agree.  If it does, it gets published, if it doesn't, then it won't.  Now there are lots and lots of conservatives that could have made their own journal and form their own little circle and publish for one and another but this hasn't happened.  Why?  Because they science just simply isn't there.  The only real source of anti-global warming science comes from non-peer reviewed articles, often times funded by big corporations, or by authors with suspicious ties to big corporations.  

Scientists Split on Human Impact on Climate Change



A Purdue University survey shows that the scientific community is split on the question of whether human activities are at the root of climate change, with just over 50 percent of scientists saying that climate change is happening and that it is “caused mostly by human activities.”

The Media Research Center reports that the study’s findings differ largely from the often used statistic that 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming.

Rather than claiming 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming, hopefully now some media outlets will revise that number closer to 50 percent.

Contrary to the repeated insistence of both climate alarmists and the media, scientists do not all agree on the standard climate alarmism talking points. A Purdue University scholar, surveying scientists in the agricultural sector including climatologists, found surprising disagreement on humanity’s role in climate change. These findings, though contrary to popular narrative on climate change, are unsurprising to anyone familiar with the prevalence of dissent in the scientific community. [...]

This evidence is inconvenient to the many media outlets that have endlessly repeated that 97 percent of scientists endorse the global warming hypothesis. Prominent outlets like NBC and the New York Times, as well as countless others, have effectively shut down debate by asserting there is no scientific debate.

The Purdue study was done to compare opinions on climate change from scientists, climatologists, and the agricultural industry. Only 53 percent of climatologists said that climate change is caused “mostly by human activities.”

The number of scientists and climatologists that chose this option is still high when compared to agricultural advisers (12.3 percent) and farmers (8 percent). The majority of both agricultural advisers and farmers said that “climate change is occurring, and it is caused more or less equally by natural changes in the environment and human activities.”

http://freebeacon.com/issues/scientists-split-on-human-impact-on-climate-change/

The trouble with 'climate science' seems to be that it is very heavily funded by entities who have certain political interests.  Most specifically to 'inventory and control' all of the resources on earth, and a 'crisis' provides a lot of tools to do this.  What has happened (fairly demonstrably) is that being on the 'correct' side of the argument ('panic and give central governments unlimited power because we are all going to die otherwise') get grant money and academic fast-tracking.  Those who are on the wrong side are induced to exit the field...so a 'scientific consensus' becomes a fairly weak sales pitch when one analyzes things.

The people who do 'make it' in climate 'science' are typically those who are not competitive in academia without some kind of advantage.  And if one can invent data or hide and tweak it as needed to achieve an outcome desired by one's patrons, this is a huge advantage.  The peer review process and transparency would ordinarily make such activities unreliable, but with a critical mass of similar 'academics' to participate in a closed-loop peer review process which seems outwardly to have some credibility part of the problem goes away.  And if one can feed the results of this subterfuge into the sphere of the political patrons for them to make the policy they want, everyone is a winner.  But the charade can only take place under the cover of secrecy.

These 'scientist' need to be able to live with themselves, but if they can justify their activities as 'saving the earth' they can get by.  Some of the older one's have some trouble with it.  In addition to Hal Lewis (a strong willed guy who also 'refused to sign the McCarthy era loyalty oath on principle' and paid the price at the time) Freeman Dyson who was studying global CO2 levels before it was cool is also calling bullshit.

Anyway, this secrecy and scientific corruption thread seems to be what the Republicans are pulling on.  If it's effective it means that there really is a problem here.  And the reaction from the 'panic now' side is even more evidence that there is quite a lot that is quite rotten here.

I am going to stop reading and responding to you right here because I am going to assume that the rest of what you are going to say is based on the same kind of logic that you opened with. 

1. It is perfectly fine to have a book burning party if you A) own and lawfully came into possession of said books and B) hold said book burning party on your own private land.  The point is, if it is your private land you can do what you want.  Reddit has its own little private space in the internet, it can do what it wants. 

2. If a majority of a community desires to raid a public library and burn the books it is not okay, it is against the law.  Right now the majority of Americans want to make Obama quit, but they don't do it because that would be against the law.  Just because the community up and has a desire doesn't mean they get their way.  I seem to remember some recent Presidential election in 2000 where the majority of Americans voted for one candidate but instead because of silly lines drawn on a map the other candidate won, yet there was no revolution.  That is democracy for you; real democracy, not the silly one you are imagining.  It isn't perfect and people don't always get what they want, but usually there isn't wild chaos when a community gets some kind of wild spur desire. 

It's perfectly fine to hold a book burning party as well, and if a majority of a community desires it it's OK to raid the public library for fuel.  Democracy.  It's mighty unsightly though.

In my research so far I am finding (to my shock and horror) that the 'skeptics' tend to have at least as high quality science and they have a lot more transparency.  And a lot more fun, but that's beside the point.

The recent 'secret science' bill which just passed the House is really pretty interesting.  The vote was straight-arrow party line.  On the face of it I would agree in the strongest possible terms that all science used to implement public policy be open for scientific review.  This especially since when it comes to climate 'science', the 'scientists' were caught red-handed doing severe crimes against any conception of science, and there results fed directly into various policy making apparatus.  The left wingers had to really reach to find an explanation for why data had to be hidden from the public.

The most interesting thing is that there has been a giant push by the media to push the 'secret science good' paradigm and demonize the right wing for trying to get transparency.  Of course the right wing is going to use it to attack the EPA and their policy making methods, but the fact that they could use transparency to do so speaks volumes about the kinds of corruption that is actually going on and that the EPA (and likely many other government bodies) are using as an increasingly necessary crutch.

And how about those Republicans?  Just today they decided to pass a bill so that when considering official government policy that “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.” Way to deny those scientist that spend their whole lives publishing in peer reviewed journals. American conservatives are just stupid.  This kind of ridiculousness doesn't happen anywhere else in the world.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/

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

It is perfectly fine that Reddit bans science deniers.  It is a private organization.  It is kind of like Fox News banning intelligent and honest people from being guests on their shows.  Private companies can do what they want. 

... in comparaison to earth you dumb fuck. you come here spreading BS about global warming (on earth right??!) - and besides your pompous egomaniac ad hominem attacks.
seems you pricks ran out of arguments in relation to earth and now you talk about venus, which you also clearly fail to understand fully.
Next time you'd be talking about pluto i guess? bitch?

edit: mehh forget it plz dont even bother responding. *ignored

What's the main thing that differentiates Venus from Earth?

Now I know why you guys were banned from reddit's science forum, dumbest of the bunch eh...

You truly have no idea what you are talking about.  Upper atmosphere cloud layers of Venus are sulfer dioxide.  All that passes through them is long frequency IR (heat).

Your other 2 points have similar errors.