Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 182. (Read 636443 times)

Konstantinos has serious concerns about climate change and does support them with evidence.  One of the few rational ones, you might say...

What I am saying is that the reading of trends into this data set cannot be supported statistically.  We cannot read a 100 year trend into a 30 year set of data.
Scare stories based on "Arctic ice melt" come out routinely.  People hearing the stories are typically clueless about how to interpret the data, as well as what "Arctic ice" even is and what the differences between sea and land ice is.

If you have to do research just to find out where the information was generated, it is not sourced. Let me put it this way... would this count as a source in a bibliography of any high school research paper?

I think "IARA-JAXA" does represent the source.

A fatal flaw with these types of charts is that they deny longer term and well known cycles.  For example the PDO is a 60-80 year climate cycle.  Other similar oscillations exist.  We do not HAVE Arctic ice extent for even one 60-80 year period, only since the 1970s.  Thus the attempt by biased users of charts to suggest the existence of a linear trend is a giant lie.  That is what this chart attempts to do.

It's human nature to believe a linear progression.

But we don't do that when spring turns to summer, we know the cycle of a year.  A 50-100 year cycle is more difficult.

You still didn't provide any sources, just a chart.



I found this chart which I feel is just as relevant as yours without a source.

Updated daily, the ice extent in the arctic with historical averages for the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. 

That isn't a source. It is a chart with absolutely no information provided showing what the chart is based on. Could you possibly be more lazy?


So when someone comes to your home and forces you to read these comments at gunpoint, why don't you call the police?

Exactly. They think claiming that it is not the issue, makes us magically not have our own opinions and conclusions, because "I say so." Sounds like a actual scientific review to me!

So you want us to provide evidence of you having no evidence? Thats not how science works.

Here is a free lesson on how science works since you clearly weren't paying attention in grade school.

1. A scientist creates a hypothesis based on personal observation.

2. These observations based on measurable empirical data are composed into a prediction and a theory.

3. A repeatable experiment is composed under which demonstrable and dependent empirical data is observed and logged in order to support the theory.

4. A conclusion is made by the scientist.

5. The scientist publishes the data publicly for the world to review and repeat the experiment.

6. Peer review results in a conclusion of the debate of the validity or lack of validity in the scientist's methods, theory, and data.

7. Scientists continue to repeat these steps to refine data and conclusions.


Here are some colorful pictures in case you can't wrap your head around this.

Great plan. Use the force of government to shut down scientific debate. They might do well to read up on Galileo and other early astronomers.

This is quite interesting because of the underlying assumption, stated in the article, that meteorologists "don't know anything about climate."

I actually think they know more about climate than people who get degrees in climatelobotomy.  At least after they've worked in the field for 20 years or so.

For example, a meteorologist is well versed in actual climate variability, something that the propaganda machines would like to attribute causation of "climate change" to.

Can't have anyone refuting that, now, can we....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2646897/Canada-bans-government-meteorologists-talking-climate-change.html

When your arguments are flawed you can either strengthen them with more study and facts or you can shut down the discussion by calling it "settled science." If that doesn't work you resort to intellectual fascism. This climate change fraudsters have damaged their discipline so much that it will take years for the moderate voices to repair it.

yes, it is exactly that argument that is desirable, rather than that should be banned, in order to establish scientific principles.

Notice nobody has banned or proposing banning the speech of those  who are against vaccinations (or any of a number of other subjects thought of as "anti-science"). 

reddit is the great landscape of the unwashed scientist.  It is less peer review than it is a mob ridicule..

Even so.  That is pretty much how science is done.  Scientists argue with each other, then they get out things to measure, then they argue about the measurement tools and whether the right things are being measured.
When someone ultimately wins, sometimes unfortunately they are sore winners and boot their noble opposition out of the scientific community.
Such hubris damages science though.

Making separate-but-equal discussions is not better.

Well what do you think you can do with those bitcoins?  You can't start a fire and keep warm burning them, can you?

Obama administration targets coal with controversial emissions regulation

The Obama administration took aim at the coal industry on Monday by mandating a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions at fossil fuel-burning power plants by 2030 — despite claims the regulation will cost nearly a quarter-million jobs a year and force plants across the country to close.

The controversial regulation is one of the most sweeping efforts to tackle global warming by this or any other administration.

The 645-page rule, expected to be final next year, is a centerpiece of President Obama’s climate change agenda, and a step that the administration hopes will get other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year.

While the plan drew praise from environmental groups, the coal industry was immediately suspect.

Bill Bissett, president of the Kentucky Coal Association, said he’s “certain that it will be very bad news for states like Kentucky who mine and use coal to create electricity.”

The draft regulation sidesteps Congress, where Obama’s Democratic allies have failed to pass a so-called “cap-and-trade” plan to limit such emissions.

Under the plan, states could have until 2017 to submit a plan to cut power plant pollution, and 2018 if they join with other states to tackle the problem, according to the EPA’s proposal.

States are expected to be allowed to require power plants to make changes such as switching from coal to natural gas or enact other programs to reduce demand for electricity and produce more energy from renewable sources.

They also can set up pollution-trading markets as some states already have done to offer more flexibility in how plants cut emissions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/

Attempting to silence speech by using labels or accusations to silent your opponents is in fact a form of fascism. Reddit is a privately owned and can do what it wants. If they want to exist in an echo chamber I don't really give a shit. I don't feel entitled to anything. Your movement however uses labels and accusations to silence, isolate and even intimidate opposition. This is in fact a form of fascism and you endorsed it and parroted the usual garbage above.

http://www.upworthy.com/a-host-helps-bill-nye-with-a-perfect-response-to-all-the-people-who-doubt-his-science-facts-on-tv

The May 13 report came from the military advisory board within CNA Corp., a nonprofit based in Alexandria, Virginia, that includes the Center for Naval Analyses, a Navy-financed group that also gets contracts from other Pentagon units. CNA also operates the Institute for Public Research.

CNA’s webpage states that it is not an advocacy group. It says it maintains “absolute objectivity. In our investigations, analyses and findings we test hypotheses, carefully guard against personal biases and preconceptions, challenge our own findings and are uninfluenced by what a client would like to hear.”

The Center for Naval Analyses’ motto is “high quality, impartial information.”

One of the CNA panel’s vice chairmen, retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, is president of a private think tank, the American Security Project, whose prime issue is warning about climate change.

The other vice chairman, retired Army Brig. Gen. Gerald E. Galloway Jr., is a prominent adviser to the Center for Climate and Security, a climate change group.

In all, four CNA board members sit on the panel of advisers to the Center for Climate and Security, whose statements on climate change are similar to those found in the CNA report.

Other board members work in the climate change world of consulting and technology.

The CNA advisory panel is headed by retired four-star Army Gen. Paul Kern, who sits on the board of directors of a company that sells climate-detection products to the Pentagon and other government agencies. At least two other board members are employed in businesses that sell climate change expertise and products.

The greatest influence on CNA reports seems to come from the Center for Climate and Security, whose position is that the debate on climate change, or man-made global warming, is over.

“This is a world which recognizes that climate change risks are unprecedented in human history and does not wait for absolute certainty before acting to mitigate and adapt to those risks,” the center says.

The CNA report, titled “National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change,” says: “Some in the political realm continue to debate the cause of a warming planet and demand more data.” It then quotes a board member as saying, “Speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”

The Center for Climate and Security has taken donations from the Tides Foundation, which gets money from Democratic Party financier and liberal billionaire George Soros.

The CNA credits the Center for Climate and Security for helping release the report, and the center issued a press release lauding the report the day it was released.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/26/sponsors-of-pentagons-alarm-raising-climate-study-/