Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 188. (Read 636458 times)

But Dr. Goodstuff says man made global warming is fake, but woman made global warming is real!

http://goodstuffsworld.blogspot.nl/2013/01/global-warming-and-hot-women.html

Nice welcome back to your reason and critical sens. Feels good doesn't it?

Any natural event will have much more huge direct impact on the planet and to us than anything we may have in disturbing our planet's temperature dramatically, as history is proof of that fact. The climate change model now being pushed does not fit actual observation by science in the short, mid and long term. So why ban the scientific minds who are still looking for causes, real or not?

I am just a dude who was deep into "climate change is hell! Believe it!" until I realized every solution for fighting it is based on taxing people and reducing the poorest of the poor to a perpetual Dark Age.
I also realized the people with the "taxing solution" travel first class in jet engine commercial or private planes, get from their hotel to those convention in not so green limousines, eating out of season fruits, most of them left rotten on tables, among thousands of flyers saying "Save the Planet! Plant a tree!"...

I use skype, google hangouts, sms, mms, emails. I rarely print any paper at all. I rarely print out my photography even. And yet I need to be reminded by Al Gore I am the one who should behave? That is rich...

 

I asked dwma a question in post #841. Would love to have an answer from him.

if it's our fault, do we get credit for the no warming in the last 20 years too?

After all....it's still warming....of the negative type...

i dont get it wilky, what you think of global warming? human's fault or not?

It's a classic. I should repost that link every 5 pages or so... 

There you go:

A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming
-> http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

 

Here's the genesis of the big lie you quoted.

 ‘Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions.’

Occam's Broom - the sweeping of inconvenient facts under the rug

http://climatelessons.blogspot.nl/2014/03/occams-broom-and-stink-of-97-of-climate.html

But what if....What if I feel totally comfortable saying that 97% were wrong?

http://www.sott.net/article/272114-97-of-the-climate-scientists-have-been-wrong-for-16-years

Not for those who have faith in science rather than science.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/12/western-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-has-already-begun-scientists-warn

--------------------------------------------------------------
I like pictures 

I am amazed you said something I agree with.  However, matters of faith are distinct from science. 

These 97% are guys who have bothered to study and write a paper that was "peer-reviewed".  I'd assume that almost all of them know more about the issue than me or anyone currently posting in this thread.

from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_believe_in_God_worldwide


doesnt make God real tho.

NO ONE has told me what is wrong with the most basic explanation of man made global warming.  Do you not believe CO2 is being released by manmade processes?  Do you think the fact that the sun's radiation is the same as the Earth after absorbing/reflecting/radiating ?   Do you think CO2 absorbs/reflects all frequencies of radiation the same ?  I ask this OVER and OVER.  No one wants to explain to me where this falls apart.





http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

97% of 12,000 PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES AGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING BEING MAN MADE.

In your first paragraph you ranted on about no peer review.   What on Earth are you talking about ?  Do you live in a separate reality ?  HELLLO BUUELLLER ?

How mental are you people ?

I knew it was 97%, but dropped it down to 95% just so I felt 100% confident.

You can say the skeptics are kicked out of the peer review journals and so forth, but it'll never end.  If you believe that, then you believe that the type of men who pretty much advanced us to the modern age are now in some huge conspiracy like they can't afford their academic lifestyles anymore.  I could try and guess the "conspiracies" you guys will concoct if you actually bother to respond to this paragraph.

It is a bit tiresome responding to lunacy, so I misspeak at times and lose my clarity.  Guys publishing in peer reviewed journals by and large are not going to be that controlled by corporations assuming they're usually from academia.  And if they are influenced by someone who has interest in denying manmade global warming,  then thats why the papers are (supposedly) peer reviewed.

Anyway, read your first paragraph then read the study I posted for you.  Tell me your issue with that.  I got ripped into using anecdotal evidence to respond to anecdotal evidence, but thats all I have seen from you guys.  It is either that, or a graph that shows the earth's temperature cycles every 100k years. .   It is either too much data (comparing 400k climate change occurring after 100 year of industrial revolution) or just anecdotal.

97% of 12,000 peer reviewed articles...

And he tells me there is not enough peer review.  

This is why reddit's subreddit booted you guys.

Thank you for demonstrating my point! The debate has "been over" since the very beginning. You demonstrate very clearly your inability to understand basic scientific principals like dependent/independent variables, causality and correlation. Global warming supporters have NEVER wanted to have a debate - they run on CONDITIONING, ie pounding an idea into your head with a hammer until it fits. I see nothing scientific whatsoever demonstrating human activity is responsible. Peer review study is the golden standard of science. When you BAN the opposing viewpoints, or simply declare "the debate is over" you aren't having peer review. Its that simple. Science can defend itself, it doesn't need your help.


 
Contradict yourself much? The "science is established" yet there is no way to prove it? That is the opposite of established. Theories and beliefs are not the same as scientific fact. Scientific fact requires empirical data paired with a repeatable experiment and peer review. You are literally rejecting every basic tenet of scientific method while claiming its backing.



Personal attacks already? CLASSY! This is exactly what real scientists do.



Ah this old chestnut. Human caused global warming policy supporters would NEVER make claims about a giant energy conglomerates conspiring to rob people of as many resources as possible would they?

You probably didn't notice in your nicely air conditioned home that there is a depression going on. This means less jobs, and a lot more pressure to "tow the line" and get whatever results daddy with the pocketbook wants so they can not only feed themselves but fund research they ACTUALLY want to do. Also don't forget massive student loan debt, and the fact that along with having an opposing viewpoint comes ejection from your job. Who is going to hire a research scientist that burns his sponsors? Scientists are humans subject to the same threats as anyone else, and you'd be surprised how little most of them make.

Also last I checked corporations are composed of inanimate objects and stacks of paperwork. It is a legal entity, so no corporations can't think for themselves. They rely on humans to run it, and humans certainly never cheat for lots of money, divert responsibility, or make mistakes now do they? I would like for you to explain to me how YOU personally aren't subject to corporations, and how scientists are some how exempt from this pressure.

I would love to see the source of your "95%+ of the guys who basically made the modern world" quote.
(note your ass is not an acceptable source)

dude look in a mirror, i personally provided with undebatable scientific material and facts. you, on the other hand, kept marbling about ice melting, birds and whatever other stupid analogy you could come up with to back up your certitudes. No wonder no one gets what the heck you are talking about.
Until PROVEN, man-made global warming is just a THEORY.
now go pay your carbon taxes.

So based on your NY Times research (not my unproven NY Post link, a newspaper made famous for the Watergate scandal by the way)... Is AGW science settled? Is it time to move on? That is what my thread here is asking...

A simple YES or NO. A yes would mean Reddit was right to ban people, based on actual settled science, not based on "pictures you guys like"...

Wilky, that is an interesting post.  When I have time I will go research it more like the ice cores.  Regardless, no one has claimed to understand exactly how weather patterns will play out. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html?_r=0

Etc.

It is interesting, but I'd prefer a better source than Washington Post.  (Not that NYtimes is better, but.. at least they reference studies.)  I understand that you guys like pictures more, though.  You can "see" the data.

dwma must be one of those baffled scientists then
---------------------------------------------------------


warming world.

On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site.  That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.






 

Bahhahahah, did you just wake up from a 20 year old nap ?  "We don't have time for debate (peer review)" ?? HUH ?  Bud, the debate and peer review on the basic truth of global warming has been done and is finished.  That is why people were booted off Reddit subforum.  People are now debating how to mitigate it and what sort of changes we are to expect.

Look, the basic science behind man made global warming was established decades ago.  Now we are seeing quite exceptional changes to the weather.  Why didn't the polar icecaps melt at a recent time leading up to this ?  The odds of global warming not being manmade are exceedingly small by this alone.  Correlation is not everything, but in the right circumstances and with enough data it can actually make a strong argument that will always fall just shy of "proof".

I love how people throw around cause and effect about something where cause and effect can not be directly demonstrated regardless.  Therefore, by their logic it isn't true.  

If anyone wants to see another lunatic, read the guy above.  Apparently global warming has some big mafia behind it.  All those scientists etc, they're just wanting better jobs.. yea, thats the ticket !  95%+ of the guys who basically made the modern world that we live in, now just decided to blow smoke up our ass because they need jobs and are controlled by corporations and can't think for themselves. yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa buddy......

---

And Spendulus, of course I know what you mean.  If you don't understand my response, then I would have to say that you don't understand my points.  You guys want to use goofy logic all over the place, so I bring up analogies that show your logic in practice and you all at once disagree with the application of your own logic elsewhere.  (When it doesn't validate your cognitive biases.)

Of course, thats what you have to do when you're on the wrong side of the debate

I don't think you have a clue about what I said, but that's okay.