Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 177. (Read 636458 times)

what if... we keep the same output of CO2 BUT!... We start trading them.. like.. on a stock market. If I produce too much then you tax me.. But if I am 110% clean I can sell my clean blackchain of non CO2 to you, dirtyman corp. and you pay me and then you get a cleaner balance... I think that's an amazing idea... What do you think?

Only a denier would reject such great idea...

It really comes down to this: Imagine we reduce our output of CO2 and switch to renewable energies. It now - just an assumption - turns out that there's no climate change or global warming: What have we lost? Nothing. What have we gained? Clean air, dependable energy sources and peace of mind.
Just going on a limp that global warming doesn't exist is just stupid, nothing more.

Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

Voters strongly believe the debate about global warming is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.

Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is not over. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters think there is still significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming, while 35% believe scientists generally agree on the subject.

The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming, a policy already practiced by the Los Angeles Times and several other media organizations.  But 60% of voters oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics. Only 19% favor such a ban, while slightly more (21%) are undecided.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/only_20_think_debate_about_global_warming_is_over

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/climate-change-could-make-red-3814089

I don't know.  Is the choice then between a third rate "expert", Carter and the vast mess of forced and false consensus presented in the IPCC report, or alternately, no opposition expert?

Either of these choices rings hollow.

How about an expose of false statements made on BBC in the last ten years on the subject of climate change?  The essential problem is a paternalistic attitude of the news agency  funded and direction by a government determining what information to mete out to people to properly shape their thoughts and attitudes.

Cloning is required.  I await the Ginger Ranches.

Gingers face extinction due to climate change, scientists warn 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gingers-face-extinction-due-to-climate-change-scientists-warn-9590054.html

Good. The discussion is over. Wont stop them crying about a conspiracy of science or whatever but as their 'theories' are about as truthful as young earth creationism who also complain about a conspiracy of science who cares? Let them be idiots over there somewhere.

debate is anti-science.... hmm

Bill nye does a fine job beating these folks up usually.
It should ultimately be persuasive as evidence tends to point to the truth.
By not talking about it, it cements the beliefs as they are.
Not sure that is better.  It seems like giving up.

BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal airtime to climate deniers
The network will stop airing "debates" featuring members of the anti-science fringe


Good news for viewers of BBC News: you’ll no longer be subjected to the unhinged ravings of climate deniers and other members of the anti-science fringe. In a report published Thursday by the BBC Trust, the network’s journalists were criticized for devoting too much air time (as in, any air time) to unqualified people with “marginal views” about non-contentious issues in a misguided attempt to provide editorial balance.

“The Trust wishes to emphasize the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” the report reads. “Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.” So far, according to the Telegraph, about 200 staff members have attending seminars and workshops aimed at improving their coverage.

To illustrate the ridiculousness of having one fringe “expert” come in to undermine a scientific consensus, the report points to the network’s coverage of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in September released a report concluding, with 95 percent certainty, that man-man climate change is happening. As was their due diligence, BBC reporters called a dozen prominent U.K. scientists, trying to drum up an opposing viewpoint. When that didn’t happen — probably because 97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening — they turned instead to retired Australian geologist Bob Carter, who has ties to the industry-affiliated Heartland Institute.

To be clear, having one guy dismiss the consensus of hundreds of the world’s top climate scientists as “hocus-pocus science” wasn’t the “balanced” thing to do, and the only reason why people like Carter continue to be taken seriously is because news networks continue to suggest they should be.

Were every network to start doing what the BBC is, their unfounded opinions would cease to be heard, Bill Nye wouldn’t have to keep debating them, and maybe, just maybe, they’d all just go away.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/06/bbc_staff_ordered_to_stop_giving_equal_air_time_to_climate_deniers/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Conservatives ‘screw’ Obama by modifying trucks to spew toxic black smoke



Slightly off-topic but it's good to see the rightwing stickin' it to the man 


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/07/rolling-coal-conservatives-screw-obama-by-modifying-trucks-to-spew-toxic-black-smoke/


Conservatives who detest President Barack Obama and EPA clean air regulations are modifying their vehicles to purposefully spew black smoke into the atmosphere. So-called “coal rollers” install smoke stacks and special equipment in their diesel trucks that makes the engine think that it needs more fuel, resulting in plumes of black smoke. According to Slate’s Dave Weigel, the phenomenon is not new, but it is becoming more popular among conservatives who want to protest the president and his efforts to clean up the environment.

“I run into a lot of people that really don’t like Obama at all,” a smoke stack seller in Wisconsin told Weigel. “If he’s into the environment, if he’s into this or that, we’re not. I hear a lot of that.”

“To get a single stack on my truck—that’s my way of giving them the finger,” he added. “You want clean air and a tiny carbon footprint? Well, screw you.”

In June, Vocativ reported on the trend of “coal rollers” using their toxic exhaust as revenge against “nature nuffies” who drive environmentally friendly cars, like the Toyota Prius.

“The feeling around here is that everyone who drives a small car is a liberal,” a South Carolina truck owner named Ryan explained. “I rolled coal on a Prius once just because they were tailing me.”

“It’s bad for the environment. That’s definitely true,” he admitted. “And some of the kids that have diesel trucks can look like tools. And you can cause a wreck, but everything else about it is pretty good.”

The Clean Air Task Force estimates that pollutants from diesel vehicles “lead to 21,000 premature deaths each year and create a cancer risk that is seven times greater than the combined risk of all 181 other air toxics tracked by the EPA.”

Reason and logic don't come into play when an issue becomes a matter of faith. You can't win an argument with a religious person or a climate true believer.

Yep.

Avatar is a genuinely bad movie.  The plot is a trivialized concoction of happy natives on the one side and a cruel, killing war machine ran by capitalist exploiters on the other.  The aliens are not even credible, neither is their technology remotely credible. 

Cameron bet on 3d, is what it's really about, and didn't pay attention to the fundamentals, script, character development, and plot depth.

I haven't watch avatar yet but it seems "plants" and "trees" are alive, like animals, in this movie. So your point makes sense for him even more.

I suggest now that he's stopped eating animals, he and his wife take the next logical step.

Stop eating plants, too.

There should be lots of 3d-avatar-glasses that nobody wants lying around that he could eat.

Hey man he is Hollywood. Do as he says not as he does.

If we plebeians just do as Hollyweirdos tell us the world would be a much better place.

I wonder how carbon neutral his movie projects are or when he decides to roam the ocean's floor with his giant flood lights...

Has Mr. Cameron ever actually been to an agricultural community? The amount of exhaust from combines and the sterilization of large swaths of monoculture land is all ready pretty extreme. If we all suddenly went vegetarian it would more than make up for any reduction in cow flatulence. It is also worth considering that if we allow cattle to be free ranged again they would actually build the soil and increase bio diversity and plant life.