Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 171. (Read 636458 times)

Now there is a lot of ice in Antarctic too:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Over 16 million sq. km and increasing...

Actually, this particular false claim of "97% consensus" was handled earlier in this thread.

It is an argument based on flawed premises, flawed research methods, and therefore produces flawed conclusions.

Which gets directly to the subject of the OP:  Reddit banning.  Means that on reddit, on this subject, one cannot discuss...

...flawed premises
...flawed research methods
...logical methods that lead to flawed conclusions.

To engender such an atmosphere is, I would think, very bad.  But hey, what do you expect from Slate? (Where Plait's aritcle is from.)  Oh, and Plait's approach in his article?  It reads like pure propaganda.  That's a bit sad.  For example, he claims Sen. Inhofe would fail middle school science.

The guy that got a D- in science in college was, I am afraid, not Inhofe but Al Gore.  Look, Plait's article has a big picture of the Earth on Fire.  There hasn't been any statistically significant warming in what, 20 years?

I mean, come on, let's be half way realistic.  Plait wouldn't do too well in an open debate on the subject of climate change, would he?

Have some Phil Plait

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

What?  You found liars that don't have to lie to "debunk a claim?" 

How will they get paid off?

Can you substantiate this claim? Or provide some sort of source.
 

I tried to look this up and i found a lot of pro agw sites dedicated to debunking this claim.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

There Are Now 52 Explanations For The Pause In Global Warming


It’s been a busy year for climate scientists, who have been trying to explain why there has been no global warming for nearly two decades.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reported in February there were eight mainstream explanations for the pause, but there are now a whopping 52 explanations for why there has been no warming trend for the last 215 months.

Explanations for the pause in global warming range from ocean oscillation cycles to Chinese coal plant emissions, volcanic activity to some scientists even saying there is no hiatus in warming.

One recent study found that the warming hiatus is due to “heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic.”

This oceanic cooling cycle “associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years,” according to Professor Ka-Kit Tung from the University of Washington.

So what’s the latest explanation for why the Earth stopped warming? Europe’s Joint Research Center (JRC) says the hiatus in warming since 2001 is due to “a combination of a natural cooling phase, known as multidecadal variability (MDV), and a downturn of the secular warming trend.”

European Union scientists don’t know the exact what caused the “downturn of the secular warming trend,” but say “ the Earth hasn’t warmed at the same pace during the 20th century.” JRC researchers analyzed surface temperature records going back to 1850 to “separate natural variations from secular” ones.

Scientists discovered three hiatus periods in the temperature records — 1878 to 1907, 1945 to 1969 and 2001 to today — and concluded that these “hiatus periods coincide with natural cooling phases – the multidecadal variability (MDV), most likely caused by natural oceanic oscillations.”

“The scientists therefore conclude that the MDV is the main cause of these hiatus periods during which global warming decelerated,” according to JRC.

Earlier this week, scientists warned that Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations reached 396 parts per million last year, and carbon dioxide levels were set to cross 400 parts per million by 2015 or 2016.

“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization — a United Nation’s weather and climate science bureaucracy.

“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years,” Jarraud warned. “We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board. We are running out of time.”

But Jarraud’s warning comes after reports that there has been no global warming for the past 215 months, according to satellite data. Furthermore, recent research suggests the “pause” in warming could last another decade.

Some climate scientists who are skeptical of theories that man-made global warming will have catastrophic impacts, say increasing carbon dioxide levels should not be alarming.

“The gradual increase in the rate of the rise of the carbon dioxide concentration is a sign that we are continuing to expand our energy use and availability, primarily in developing countries like India and China,” wrote Chip Knappenberger, assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the libertarian Cato Institute.

“With more than a billion people still without much access to electricity… and all the life-improving benefits that come with it, we still have a long way to go,” Knappenberger added. “Consequently, we should anticipate that the atmospheric CO2 concentration will continue to grow for many years to come.”



http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/12/there-are-now-52-explanations-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/#ixzz3D9LaP97U

All the rainbow lovers in the world, not just gays, have nothing to fear from the climate change described by gore. Rainbows will be fine 

with climate change, no more rainbows for the gays 

Gays Form New Global Warming Alarmist Group: “Queers For The Climate”…


In a moment when marriage equality can feel like the sole focus of LGBTQ activism, some voices in the movement have begun to ask if the community’s purview should be so limited. Why not use the critical distance from mainstream culture that being queer has traditionally afforded to critique not just issues that affect LGBTQ lives specifically, but problems that impact the lives of everyone else as well.

This is the ethos behind Queers for the Climate, a new group of queer-identified activists who have made it their mission to advocate for action on global warming. What does being queer have to do with caring about climate change? The group’s logic goes like this:

We’ve trained for this fight. We have faced persecution because of who we are and stood up to those who denied our existence. Our communities faced near extinction throughout the early HIV/AIDS crisis. Today we are all facing the grave threat of an unstable climate.

Queers for the Climate counts among its membership LGBTQ icons like John Cameron Mitchell (Hedwig and the Angry Inch), Ira Sachs (Love Is Strange), and actor Alan Cumming, and it’s using that clout to help organize for the People’s Climate March, a demonstration scheduled to take place in New York City during a major United Nations meeting on global warming later in September.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/08/queers_for_the_climate_why_queer_people_should_get_involved_with_climate.html

WHAT?  IT'S NOT SCARY?  I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY SCARY!!!!   Like....



“...My friends, the coming nightmare is close.  A bad sea, rising higher and higher.  It will drown those who sit in their houses, and use coal to power their air conditioning.  Their SUVs will not outrun these floods.  The Earth is like a great battery, that stores the heat from the carbon pollution.  And where is the heat stored?"

“In the deep!”
“The oceans!”
“Way, way down, man!”

“Yes, science tell us the Great Warming yet to come is waiting, lurking deep in the oceans.  If the temperatures had been rising the last five decades, some of that energy would have dissipated, going into space.  But instead the Earth is storing it up.  More energy than millions of hydrogen bombs.  Suddenly - very soon, the tipping point will come.  Like from a coiled spring that energy will burst forth.  Upon those who caused it.  Upon those who would not listen."

He smirked, as he said “The Deniers, and their anti-science.”  He looked at another blond girl, this one in the middle row.  “The Deniers say that stable temperatures since the 1980s means the Earth isn’t warming.  What do you say to fools like that?  What do you say to those who claim that almost fifty years of level temperatures means no warming?"

“Tards, dude!  Tards!”
“Hang them from the nearest tree!”
“Jail.  Jail the damn Deniers!
“Shoot them all!”

“Yes."

He looked down in sorrow and pity, as the snow fell faster.

 “These fools will regret the day they unleash the storms, the droughts, and the floods.  Mark my words.  The people of the world will call for new Nuremberg Trials for these despicable enemies of the Earth.”

“Here will be the edge of the sweltering sea, two hundred miles inland.  Here will be the lifeless, stinking waters of death.  Here will be dead fish that once schooled and played.  They will be bloated stinking carcasses, floating in such numbers the water can’t be seen.  Mixed with cattle, dogs and human remains.  Even the fish from the deep.  They will float serenely up in death.  Fish that for a billion years never saw sun light.  From the natural darkness of the depths, to the new darkness wrought by humans.”

(excerpt, Makers of the Moon)

Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now







http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html



--------------------------------------
The science is settled then. 

Good-Bye, Treaty
The administration plans to sign a non-binding climate-change accord. Good luck with that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg88rf-5t4A




‘I am speaking on behalf of the United States of America because my negotiators cannot,” Abigail Borah, a youth delegate to the 2011 Durban climate negotiations, yelled from the conference floor. “I am scared for my future,” she cried, silencing Todd Stern, the Obama administration’s chief climate negotiator. “We need an urgent path to a fair, ambitious, and legally binding treaty.”

Now the Obama administration is signaling that there will be not be a new climate treaty. According to a report in Wednesday’s New York Times, the path to a treaty has come to an end, 14 months before the Paris talks scheduled for next year. Instead, the best deal on offer is a non-binding accord. This is big news.

Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is reheating the rhetoric from its fifth assessment report, doing what it always does: produce the right mood music ahead of crunch-time climate talks. Trouble is, it’s all sounding more than a little dated. In that report, the first installment of which was released last September, the IPCC ducked the big question unsettling climate science. What are the possible causes and implications of the pause — or hiatus, as the IPCC prefers to call it — in the rise in average global temperatures? The pause is already more than a decade old. With 39 explanations and counting, and some climate scientists now arguing that it might last yet another decade, the IPCC has sidelined itself in irrelevance until it has something serious to say about the pause and has reflected on whether its alarmism is justified, given its reliance on computer models that predicted temperature rises that have not occurred.

While the IPCC plays yesterday’s tired hits, it appears that next year’s climate-change negotiations will bring forth a mouse. In retrospect, the Durban climate conference turned out to be the high point for expectations that climate negotiations would produce a binding treaty. It was also the high point for the European Union’s climate-change strategy, knocking the U.S. on its heels. After the acrimonious collapse of attempts to agree to a climate treaty at Copenhagen in 2009, American and European climate negotiators drew diametrically different conclusions about what to do next.
The Obama administration reckoned that climate-change diplomacy had to be based on the recognition that opposition from China and India put a climate-change treaty beyond the realm of the realizable. The Senate was not going to ratify a treaty that did not include all the major emitters, and, as a matter of arithmetic, all the major emitters had to sign the treaty if it were to have any chance of tackling global warming.

It was the same logic that had led President George W. Bush not to send the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification. Instead, his administration developed a strategy aimed at including the major emerging economies. That strategy was adopted by President Obama. Success required overcoming the division between developed and developing nations that was enshrined in the 1992 U.N. climate-change convention. It is why the Senate adopted, 95–0, the Byrd-Hagel resolution shortly before Kyoto. Speaking with one voice, the Senate said that the U.S. should not ratify any climate-change treaty unless it included specific, timetabled commitments from developing nations.

By contrast, after Copenhagen, the Europeans clung to the hope of a binding treaty embracing all major emitters. Their strategy was to use the annual cycle of U.N. climate-change negotiations to fragment the coalition of developing nations through promises of billions of dollars of climate aid. Finding themselves isolated, the Indians and the Chinese would buckle under international pressure and sign on to a comprehensive treaty.

At Durban, the Europeans had an apparent trump card that encapsulated the delusory nature of the enterprise. All the other developed nations had decided to join the U.S. and effectively exit the Kyoto Protocol at the end of its first commitment period; Canada went further and formally withdrew. Without “hard, bankable” commitments from large nations on a roadmap to a binding treaty, the EU would pull the plug on Kyoto. So threatened Chris Huhne, the U.K. climate secretary who subsequently had to resign and serve time at Her Majesty’s pleasure, for perjury.

The EU’s hard line appeared to move the needle decisively toward a treaty. China indicated a softening in its position. The conference agreed to launch a process that aimed to deliver, at the very least, an agreed outcome with “legal force” applicable to developed and developing nations alike. Even Todd Stern was impressed, calling the Durban outcome “very significant.” The drive toward a comprehensive climate treaty, culminating at the Paris climate conference in 2015, was on.

Now that plan has collapsed. For the Obama administration, this means reverting to its pre-Durban Plan A: no legally binding commitments but voluntary pledges, notified under the auspices of the 1992 convention and underpinned by a regime of “naming and shaming” those who don’t live up to them. There is a big problem with this. It has already been tried, and it failed.

Out of the ashes of Copenhagen came the Copenhagen Accord, under which nations would notify the U.N. climate-change secretariat of their commitments to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions. In January 2010, Japan notified the convention secretariat of its pledge to cut its 1990-level emissions 25 percent by 2020. Last November, the government of Shinzo Abe tore this up, replacing it with a new target that implied a 3.8 percent increase. It caused hardly a ripple. Clearly, an international regime of emissions cuts enforced by naming and shaming has no credibility.

Worse still are the terrible optics of the Obama administration’s handling of the non-treaty. The partisan spin is that this route enables the climate-change negotiations to bypass recalcitrant Republicans in the Senate. The unanimous vote in favor of the Byrd-Hagel resolution in 1997— the current secretaries of state and defense both voted for it — showed bipartisan opposition to any climate-change treaty that does not cover all the world’s major emitters. Blaming Republicans might be smart electoral politics, but it shifts international attention from the opposition of India and China to any treaty that binds them. Playing into the hands of the blame-America crowd is never good politics for an American president.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386639/good-bye-treaty-rupert-darwall

What matters is the hufpo readers will understand this article to be the best factual proof of how heartless the deniers and their silly, sad, unsexy, full of bad old fashion style little methodologies are. Why can't they stick some CO2 in a bottle under a lamp like everyone else is beyond insane and soooooo anti science... Yep

Only one correction, bolded section above.

This is a far left, minority radical view unsubstantiated by any scientific consensus.  This is the group who have been claiming 20 foot sea rise in 20 years, that sort of thing.

Repeating.

So often, those who are skeptical of the claims that catastrophic climate shifts will result in dramatic changes to the environment in a timeframe too short to allow for acclimation are told they are “deniers” – e.g. something akin to those who cling, in the face of all contrary evidence, to the notion that the Holocaust never occurred.

It also represents a shift in the definition of the use of the term Denier, from one who denies the existence of human caused climate change to someone who has a pretty rational view about it.

If this is output from the Huffington post, essentially it ridicules alarmists and praises skeptics, eg, Deniers.

Scientists abandon science to popularize climate change alarmism


Nothing says confidence in the verdict of history and an unwavering faith in ultimate vindication like gauche emotional manipulation. Similar to so many tropes on the left, the issue of climate change has evolved from a public policy challenge into just another shibboleth – a special knock, knowledge of which allows you access to the liberal speakeasy.

Let’s perform a thought experiment. Take a look at the faces below. What emotion do you see displayed?







I would say, respectively, bored, skeptical, hungry, and engaged. You probably came up with a number of different responses.

Now look at them again with the knowledge that all of the above are climate scientists who are supposedly struggling to maintain their composure during a panicked discussion about the post-apocalyptic Hellscape that awaits us in a future defined by climate shifts.

That’s how The Huffington Post primed its readers before featuring images of these and other scientific professionals purportedly wracked with anxiety over the pressing problem of global climate change.

“We’ve read the daunting headlines. We’ve seen the bleak predictions. We know in our minds that climate change is putting our Earth’s future in danger,” the Huffington Post’s write up on a series of photographs called “Scared Scientists” by artist Nick Bowers. “And yet there’s something uniquely frightening about this artist’s attempt to transform global warming data into visceral, human responses.”

Frightening? They might as well be dramatic headshots. You could probably book a recurring role on an HBO drama with one of these – at least, get you past the casting director’s door.

This was just one of Tuesday’s attempts by climate activists to tug at your heartstrings in lieu of a logical argument.

“Scientists are used to talking about climate change in facts and figures, a discussion framed around parts-per-million concentrations of carbon dioxide, millimeters of sea-level rise, and degrees of global temperatures,” a piece in Tuesaday’s National Journal opened. “[Australian National University student] Joe Duggan wants them to talk about their feelings.”

Duggan said the project is meant to engage the broader public, who despite seeing facts about climate change can feel “apathetic” or simply overwhelmed by the volume of data. He thought that letting experts use an emotional pitch might help the layperson connect with their work.

“The scientists that have penned letters for this project are scared, angry, anxious, and at times hopeful and optimistic,” he said in an email. “These are real feelings that everyone has experienced in their lives. But the scientists aren’t feeling this way about an anniversary or a pressing deadline. They’re feeling this way about the fate of our planet.”

Duggan said the experts he’s reached out to have expressed “relief” at being able to express their emotions and he’s even starting hearing from more researchers who want to participate. He’s also been getting responses from the general public on his website and through Twitter.

How insulting.

Only the most emotionally stunted cannot anticipate the fact that a campaign centered on talking down to one’s audience is unlikely to result in a deluge of newfound public support. But these and other forms of casual condescension are what the climate alarmism movement has become.

So often, those who are skeptical of the claims that catastrophic climate shifts will result in dramatic changes to the environment in a timeframe too short to allow for acclimation are told they are “deniers” – e.g. something akin to those who cling, in the face of all contrary evidence, to the notion that the Holocaust never occurred. And yet, those who evangelize about the terrible future that awaits us if we do not address climate change with policy prescriptions, most of which center on personal deprivation and the defining of prosperity down, appeal to the heart over the head in order to make their case.

The logical contentions have failed, they seem to reason. Rather than examine that critically, they chose to shift tactics from argumentation to shaming and emoting. This is not a tactic which respects its audience as thinking individuals. The public knows an advertising campaign when they see one.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/26/scientists-abandon-science-to-popularize-climate-change-alarmism/

"5 Guys Burgers" : best timing for that name  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8506996

reddit unfortunately has an agenda too!

I assume he has some low speed Internet access?  Yes?  Good.  So we have a year to convince him that it's not warming and there is not a crisis.

That shouldn't be too difficult.