Author

Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 180. (Read 636486 times)

sr. member
Activity: 405
Merit: 250


You guys are such clowns.  You make fun of all these little terms people invent then you use stuff like "environmental imperialism".  Is that like "environmental communism" or "environmental democracy" ?

I've parsed your grammar in your posts and analyzed all 158 of them.  Hello, paid troll.

I hadn't visited here since I started being paid.  I did visit though and this is what I saw.  At least I have valid points.  I'm gonna give up being paid though, it was just an experiment and a big waste of time at that.

Please though, continue on with your analysis of my posts.  I would like you to learn something.

edit - Also, I've not been "paid" yet.  Wink  All $.33 per post. rofl.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
"Climate deniers".

Isn't that a stupid term?

Way to go, reddit. Like those climate scientists making threats to those who are publishing findings that are contrary to their hypothesis. Makes me want to consider speading climate change denialist propaganda.
The term is carefully crafted propaganda to associate people who do not agree with the man made global warming hypothesis with "holocaust deniers" which is legally a crime in some countries, and a hair short of calling someone antisemitic. So in short, in their mind, having an opinion of your own means you supported Hitler's extermination of millions of people. Clearly the Nazi party was very friendly to people with opposing opinions no?

We used to be climate skeptics but skeptic generally carries positive connotations so the public relations scum bags put a stop to that.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon


You guys are such clowns.  You make fun of all these little terms people invent then you use stuff like "environmental imperialism".  Is that like "environmental communism" or "environmental democracy" ?

I've parsed your grammar in your posts and analyzed all 158 of them.  Hello, paid troll.

Wow! I did not know it was so easy to unmask a paid troll. Maybe it is time for me to add some kind of advertising  while replying back to him. At least he is making money here...

legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon

Two days later, he was sacked by email. The IPS said: "We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours."


Yep... "Climate justice" is science fact... Roll Eyes



He just spoke the truth.

In the WSJ OpEd entitled Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change, Rossiter argued that Africans should benefit from the same mixed energy policy as Americans rather than being denied access to fossil fuels on spurious environmental grounds by green activists. He wrote: "The left wants to stop industrialization - even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false."

But the Institute for Policy Studies ("Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice, and the Environment") is ideologically committed to ensuring that Africans only enjoy the benefits of expensive, intermittent, inefficient renewable energy such as wind and solar.


The idea that Africa would be kept under the boot heel of imperialism, morphed into environmental imperialism is unacceptable.  A bit part of the philosophical basis behind this nonsense is coming from Britain.

You guys are such clowns.  You make fun of all these little terms people invent then you use stuff like "environmental imperialism".  Is that like "environmental communism" or "environmental democracy" ?



Yes for "Environmental Communism"...


http://mondediplo.com/2000/07/19envidisaster

legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386


You guys are such clowns.  You make fun of all these little terms people invent then you use stuff like "environmental imperialism".  Is that like "environmental communism" or "environmental democracy" ?

I've parsed your grammar in your posts and analyzed all 158 of them.  Hello, paid troll.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon

Two days later, he was sacked by email. The IPS said: "We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours."


Yep... "Climate justice" is science fact... Roll Eyes



He just spoke the truth.

In the WSJ OpEd entitled Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change, Rossiter argued that Africans should benefit from the same mixed energy policy as Americans rather than being denied access to fossil fuels on spurious environmental grounds by green activists. He wrote: "The left wants to stop industrialization - even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false."

But the Institute for Policy Studies ("Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice, and the Environment") is ideologically committed to ensuring that Africans only enjoy the benefits of expensive, intermittent, inefficient renewable energy such as wind and solar.


The idea that Africa would be kept under the boot heel of imperialism, morphed into environmental imperialism is unacceptable.  A bit part of the philosophical basis behind this nonsense is coming from Britain.

...WWF...

sr. member
Activity: 405
Merit: 250

Two days later, he was sacked by email. The IPS said: "We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours."


Yep... "Climate justice" is science fact... Roll Eyes



He just spoke the truth.

In the WSJ OpEd entitled Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change, Rossiter argued that Africans should benefit from the same mixed energy policy as Americans rather than being denied access to fossil fuels on spurious environmental grounds by green activists. He wrote: "The left wants to stop industrialization - even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false."

But the Institute for Policy Studies ("Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice, and the Environment") is ideologically committed to ensuring that Africans only enjoy the benefits of expensive, intermittent, inefficient renewable energy such as wind and solar.


The idea that Africa would be kept under the boot heel of imperialism, morphed into environmental imperialism is unacceptable.  A bit part of the philosophical basis behind this nonsense is coming from Britain.

You guys are such clowns.  You make fun of all these little terms people invent then you use stuff like "environmental imperialism".  Is that like "environmental communism" or "environmental democracy" ?
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386

Two days later, he was sacked by email. The IPS said: "We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours."


Yep... "Climate justice" is science fact... Roll Eyes



He just spoke the truth.

In the WSJ OpEd entitled Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change, Rossiter argued that Africans should benefit from the same mixed energy policy as Americans rather than being denied access to fossil fuels on spurious environmental grounds by green activists. He wrote: "The left wants to stop industrialization - even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false."

But the Institute for Policy Studies ("Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice, and the Environment") is ideologically committed to ensuring that Africans only enjoy the benefits of expensive, intermittent, inefficient renewable energy such as wind and solar.


The idea that Africa would be kept under the boot heel of imperialism, morphed into environmental imperialism is unacceptable.  A bit part of the philosophical basis behind this nonsense is coming from Britain.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon

Two days later, he was sacked by email. The IPS said: "We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours."


Yep... "Climate justice" is science fact... Roll Eyes

hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1004
buy silver!
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
The first two links are to recent peer reviewed papers showing the continuation of global warming. The next two are Met Office replies to David Rose's misleading assertions. The following offer additional evidence of continued warming
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
"Climate deniers".

Isn't that a stupid term?

Way to go, reddit. Like those climate scientists making threats to those who are publishing findings that are contrary to their hypothesis. Makes me want to consider speading climate change denialist propaganda.
The term is carefully crafted propaganda to associate people who do not agree with the man made global warming hypothesis with "holocaust deniers" which is legally a crime in some countries, and a hair short of calling someone antisemitic. So in short, in their mind, having an opinion of your own means you supported Hitler's extermination of millions of people. Clearly the Nazi party was very friendly to people with opposing opinions no?

I believe the term started and has been propagated by the editor at Grist.com.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
"Climate deniers".

Isn't that a stupid term?

Way to go, reddit. Like those climate scientists making threats to those who are publishing findings that are contrary to their hypothesis. Makes me want to consider speading climate change denialist propaganda.
The term is carefully crafted propaganda to associate people who do not agree with the man made global warming hypothesis with "holocaust deniers" which is legally a crime in some countries, and a hair short of calling someone antisemitic. So in short, in their mind, having an opinion of your own means you supported Hitler's extermination of millions of people. Clearly the Nazi party was very friendly to people with opposing opinions no?
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
"Climate deniers".

Isn't that a stupid term?

Way to go, reddit. Like those climate scientists making threats to those who are publishing findings that are contrary to their hypothesis. Makes me want to consider speading climate change denialist propaganda.


deny.the.climat.
sr. member
Activity: 770
Merit: 250
"Climate deniers".

Isn't that a stupid term?

Way to go, reddit. Like those climate scientists making threats to those who are publishing findings that are contrary to their hypothesis. Makes me want to consider speading climate change denialist propaganda.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
....
Agreed. It doesn't seem like it if you watch the news but the human race does actually get more peaceful as we advance. If there is a civilization that is so advanced as to be able to do interstellar travel a reasonable assumption is that they would either be peaceful or avoid detection altogether so as to not interfere with our history.

There is some reason to fear emerging species from the interstellar viewpoint.  Suppose you are happily existing around Alpha Centauri, and you get word of this massive heap of junk headed your way from Sol.  The remains of an interstellar spaceship sent on a trip to your solar system which disintegrated en route killing everyone on their 250 year voyage. 

All that junk is coming in at a significant fraction of light speed......

That's way, WAY more scary than a big rock hitting the Earth...I guess depending on the size of the rock, but energy increases as the square of the speed...

I suppose it comes down to the size of the vessel and maybe even more so the type of fuel they use. Even a small amount of antimatter for instance could decimate the globe. 

Or maybe such a ship is placed purposefully in a trajectory for which if destroyed the fragments avoid the target solar system all together, passing just to the side of it.  But that requires a lot more energy and time.

Curious, really that astronomers never see any REALLY fast moving objects.  Everything is on a scale related to the range of escape velocities for the planets.  In other words, not only do we not see aliens from Alpha Centauri, we don't even see a couple rocks from there.   Nothing at all.  I'll have to figure some range of speeds for junk ejection in a supernova later...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2655105/Engage-warp-drive-Nasa-reveals-latest-designs-Star-Trek-style-spacecraft-make-interstellar-travel-reality.html

legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
....
Agreed. It doesn't seem like it if you watch the news but the human race does actually get more peaceful as we advance. If there is a civilization that is so advanced as to be able to do interstellar travel a reasonable assumption is that they would either be peaceful or avoid detection altogether so as to not interfere with our history.

There is some reason to fear emerging species from the interstellar viewpoint.  Suppose you are happily existing around Alpha Centauri, and you get word of this massive heap of junk headed your way from Sol.  The remains of an interstellar spaceship sent on a trip to your solar system which disintegrated en route killing everyone on their 250 year voyage. 

All that junk is coming in at a significant fraction of light speed......

That's way, WAY more scary than a big rock hitting the Earth...I guess depending on the size of the rock, but energy increases as the square of the speed...

I suppose it comes down to the size of the vessel and maybe even more so the type of fuel they use. Even a small amount of antimatter for instance could decimate the globe. 

Or maybe such a ship is placed purposefully in a trajectory for which if destroyed the fragments avoid the target solar system all together, passing just to the side of it.  But that requires a lot more energy and time.

Curious, really that astronomers never see any REALLY fast moving objects.  Everything is on a scale related to the range of escape velocities for the planets.  In other words, not only do we not see aliens from Alpha Centauri, we don't even see a couple rocks from there.   Nothing at all.  I'll have to figure some range of speeds for junk ejection in a supernova later...
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
....
Agreed. It doesn't seem like it if you watch the news but the human race does actually get more peaceful as we advance. If there is a civilization that is so advanced as to be able to do interstellar travel a reasonable assumption is that they would either be peaceful or avoid detection altogether so as to not interfere with our history.

There is some reason to fear emerging species from the interstellar viewpoint.  Suppose you are happily existing around Alpha Centauri, and you get word of this massive heap of junk headed your way from Sol.  The remains of an interstellar spaceship sent on a trip to your solar system which disintegrated en route killing everyone on their 250 year voyage. 

All that junk is coming in at a significant fraction of light speed......

That's way, WAY more scary than a big rock hitting the Earth...I guess depending on the size of the rock, but energy increases as the square of the speed...

I suppose it comes down to the size of the vessel and maybe even more so the type of fuel they use. Even a small amount of antimatter for instance could decimate the globe. 
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
Jump to: