Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 189. (Read 636458 times)

Its pretty sad how people can't grasp the simple independence of global weather change and humans not necessarily being the cause. Correlation does not equal causation, and evidence of human responsibility for it is seriously lacking, full of fraud, or non-existent and based purely on emotion substituted for logic.

Every time someone makes it into a question of "are humans responsible?" it suddenly becomes a denial in their mind of any change of weather patterns, because it is JUST SO IMPORTANT AND IMMINENTLY THREATENING that we don't have time for debate (peer review), or even time to let anyone have a dissenting opinion. Have you ever considered the damage that might be created by ignoring the REAL NATURAL THREAT and wasting time and resources on a system that will make you less able to make choices for yourself, your family, and your country?

This is about one thing MONEY. You don't have to own oil fields to get rich off of global warming. All the reactionaries on the opposing polar opinion are more than happy to be dupes for the same people wearing a different shell corp. You are so sure of your conclusions you are willing to put everyone's life on the line without even an honest debate.  Why aren't you supporting clean energy instead of raging about all the problems and destroying things you had no hand in building? The system doesn't need your help to destroy itself. It is obsolete and it will collapse under its own weight. Try actually doing something instead of just preaching about how humans are bad and need to be controlled more (as if we aren't already almost completely subjects anyway).

I am not for banning on most forums.  I think this is the one issue that is important enough to be clearly distinct.  Besides, you guys want debate, right ?  Well... at least in name.. I don't think any of you guys want to truly debate anything.

Did you watch the youtube video?  I believe the host of that show had a very cognizant point.  All "debates" show 1 guy vs 1 guy, when the debate is really more like 30 guys to 1.   So anyone who isn't smart enough to cut through the bs, will see equal amounts of "evidence" on both sides in the interest of "fairness".  The problem is, the "evidence" is not anywhere near equal on both sides.  In neither quality or quantity

The best you guys do as far as arguing is misrepresent what I say via selective quoting or refusing to actually try to understand anything I say.  Instead you guys choose an obviously bullshit interpretation and try to ridicule me.  It is understandable, I don't think the playbook of guys on the losing end of such a lopsided "debate" will have much else to go with.

We should all be thankful for dwma as a reminder of the true spirit of a banned-free thread... I know you would ban me though 

Keep on the good work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

After googling the other day about global warming and things I'd read here, I had this suggested to me in google.

I think it sums up the situation quite nicely.

Huh ?  You say there is no proof, so I ask what would you consider to be "proof" ?    You ask a question that can not be answered to your liking regardless of the answer, so why would anyone bother answering ?

Just like no one can prove god does or does not exist.

Enjoy your penny a post, probably one of the few jobs you can manage.

I was ripped into for responding with anecdotal evidence.  I am surprised no one has jumped on you here.  Lol.  (Biases !?!?!?)

Go look at Texas and look see the weather patterns.  It is a different story.  Droughts don't help farmers.

You're are 100% right though.  "As long as there is water".  So you plant a bit later.  For now it appears northern latitude farmers will benefit from the changing weather patterns in global warming.  You can adjust by planting a bit later, you can't adjust to lack of rainfall.

A lot of the reason I respond here is to try to understand the cognitive biases of you looneys.  I constantly see that you appeal to some random authority.  Whether quoting books from the 1700s, claiming to be a professor, or claiming to be a farmer and thus more in tune with the weather. 

Again, no one has explained what is wrong with the basic science that explains man made global warming.  Hellllllloooooo?

Yes, you could use this argument against any environmental issue. 

After all, what is the relevance of any issue, when the world has existing for 1,000,000 times longer than said issue ?

Isn't that how your logic works ?

Again, you are assuming the 100k cycle of ice ages is relevant to what is currently going on.  It isn't in any meaningful sense.

I almost mentioned it and now will, there is a statistical error with the 400,000 year chart presented earlier (which also exists in Gore/Mann's "Hockey Stick", among other errors).

That is that we cannot take a statistical data series each unit being a proxy measure per 20 or 100 years and append to the end a series of data each unit of which is a measure of 1 day or an average of days for 20 or 100 years. 

Doing this is wrong because it presumes we know the exact method of averaging used in the proxy and we do not.  Proxies are things like ice cores or tree rings or elemental oxygen analysis, things we know change with temperature.  I'm greatly summarizing here but the general problem should be obvious.

So yeah, our brief lives don't tell us the big picture.

At the risk of mistaking 'weather' and 'climate', and 'warming' vs. 'change' (both extraordinarily common mistakes)...

I've visited Juneau Alaska pretty regularly over the course of my life and inevitably check out the Mendenhall glacier it being nearby and not requiring the use of a bush airplane to observe.  It is on the move.  Backward.  And fast.

  http://vimeo.com/69802285

That being said, I think there is at least one other glacier that is doing the opposite.  Whether this is due to increased total ice volume in the ice-shed or changes in it's patterns of movement, I don't know.

The salient point is that 'my life' is a very tiny sliver in geological time frames.  Perhaps the glaciers oscillates naturally (and historically) on this frequency but I rather doubt it.  Could look it up I suppose as I'm sure studies have been done on it.

I guess I should point out that the Mendenhall glacier does seem to have been receding for longer than humans have been burning fossil fuels.  I know a person who got a free gift of a shit-load of land which, due to rebound, made it high enough above sea level to change the lot lines.  I believe that is due to that glacier having been over that land relatively recently in geological time.

How well would farmers do if we had an ice age?

Say for example, just a tiny little one.  A repeat of the "Little Ice Age" of a few centuries ago?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

A man from Kiribati, whose home in South Tarawa is threatened by rising sea levels, has lost what is possibly his final bid to live in New Zealand as a refugee.

Ioane Teitiota, 37, lost his Court of Appeal case against a tribunal decision refusing him refugee status in New Zealand.

Mr Teitiota has been living in New Zealand with his wife and New Zealand-born children since 2007.

He did not want to return home to South Tarawa when his work visa expired in 2010 because of the combined pressures of over-population and rising sea-levels.

The latest decision means he, together with his wife and children, are likely to be deported.

In its ruling, the court found Mr Teitiota’s case was “fundamentally misconceived”.

His lawyer, Michael Kidd, said the case was essentially about the court’s interpretation of the UN definition of a refugee.

“The issue really is what the definition of persecution is,” Mr Kidd told Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat.

“Our point right through has been that there is ‘passive persecution’ from the inability of the Kiribati government to protect the right to life of Mr Teitiota and his children.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-12/an-kiribati-man-loses-climate-change-refugee-appeal/5447170

My father farmed for 45 years, I spent 25 years on a farm.  When you grow FOOD for a living, you rely on nature, you watch the weather, you learn the weather.  The weather makes or fkn breaks you.  If you cant get a crop in because its too cold in the spring, there isnt going to be a crop.  It doesnt matter how hot it gets some days.  Crops love the heat as long as they have water. The last 2 years there has been one extra month of winter.  We also still raise leaf cutter bees, they work best in 75 and above temps.  Leaf cutters have not done well the last 2 years.  Go ahead and try some more of your fkn bullshit with this farmer!

What, you can't formulate the hypothesis and want other people to do your work for you?  You've made the claim, you do the work.

A giant problem with hysterical warmies is all the lying they do to promote their cause.   Here's an exposee of some of that lying by Gore and Nye.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

It's really a shame that so many real environmental threats are being ignored because of the fanatic myopia about climate change.

dude seriously such stunning arguments. tell the birds i say hi 
the point being that there is no such proof. at all.

So I ask again, with all your knowledge of scientific rigor and logic, what would actually be "proof" that global warming is caused by man?

No matter what "proof" is presented it will be along the same lines as evolution.  The lunatic fringe will consistently pick it apart and find the weakest of arguments to repeat ad nauseum to "prove" it isn't true.  Not everything in science can be "proved" in the traditional sense.

Your holding up a graph that shows climate cycles of 100k years is a prime example.  It really has nothing to do with manmade global warming.

For instance if a flock of birds dies.  I say I suspect it is the poison lake that they're all sitting by dead.  You would find evidence of birds dying off elsewhere as proof that it has happened before and therefore my theory is invalid.  This is the type of logic you are working with.

Fortunately people who don't post to make .01 a post use logic correctly and in a way that advances human thought.

so at least there is some actual material to start studying before interpreting.

maybe one day you'll get it, its called logic and scientific rigor.

such assertion, much argument

so it never melted that way before?

my posts are still worth thousands of yours and you should definitely starts worrying about your s**t.

Those ice cores obviously didn't melt in the past 400k years or they wouldn't have the data.  Yet what is going on now is somehow supposed to be compared to that but nonsensical reasoning.

Man-made global warming has been predicted by basic science for decades.  The fact that the polar ice is melting all over the place is exceptionally strong evidence.

If you think garbage disposal is a big problem, then I understand why you sell your posts for a $.01 or whatever PrimeDice pays you.

what rapid climate change? ice melting? so you are assuming it never melted before? At what rate is it considered to be rapid vs slow? how do you link it to human CO2 rejections?

like i said, people should better start worrying about real short term environmental threats such as Fukushima or garbage disposal. not some loonie thesis that is unprovable. focus on facts first plz.

edit: plus, if anything changing the climate.. it would be chemtrails.. and its called geoengineering..

Yea, we should all be worried about all the garbage laying about.

What would a "scientific proofs that actually links human activity to such a cycle" look like ?  Answer - You wouldn't ever find anything acceptable.  You want a level of proof that is not really possible in the domain.

You're already assuming it is a cycle, thereby showing your biases. Oh yea! because we know cycles happen every 100000 years, therefore this rapid climate change we see is not likely caused by man.  ROFL.

Next you'll tell me you're a professor !

I'll have to admit, I've learned a lot of ignorant thought processes in this thread, so even for me it has been quite educational.