Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 19. (Read 636455 times)

Good to see you all.

I was warned to have one activity per 24 hrs by the banhammer God... or else (funny enough it was around that time when my Up Like Trump thread got very popular, way before /The_Donald, but maybe it was just a simple coincidence). The Bitcointalk God decided it was the end for Wilikon. Oh well.
I do not believe there was anything else as I rarely participated in other parts of the forum and I never sent private messages to anyone, never promoted any websites or coins, not even asking for coins. I never got personal or menacing. I got banned one day and was too lazy to fight the system. That's all. No Alien abduction.

Although I may never meet any of you in real life, I really cherish the fact you took your time to reply, agree or fight any ideas I was sharing, the very concept of free speech. I am glad many of the names are still around, trying so hard to find out if there is a concept of culture people need to fight for or not, if the joooooooos are controlling the world, or if God is male of female (Wow! 2 genders).

My amazing, delightful, over the top, yet always so humble AI-proof-sense-of-humor will always be my Wilikoin blockchain.

 

Good to see you back Wilikon.  I pegged ~robbylove as probably you before noticing the footer.  In case you didn't see it, there was a thread about your vanishing act.

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT fuck with the Bureau of Adjustments.

We know what's best for you.

Bureau of Inconsistencies: Need for Urgent Independent Inquiry



MINISTER Josh Frydenberg was told by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology on, or about, Wednesday 5th July 2017 that limits had been placed on how cold temperatures could be recorded across mainland Australia.

This winter we have experienced record low temperatures.   But only the keenest weather observers have noticed, because the Bureau has been changing the actual values measured by the automatic weather stations.

In particular, the Minister was told that while the Goulburn weather station accurately measured the local temperature as minus 10.4 at 6.30 am on Sunday 2 July, a smart card reader prevented this value from being recorded as the daily minimum on the Daily Weather Observations page.

The smart card reader had been pre-programmed to round-up any value below minus 10 degrees Celsius.  So, instead of entering minus 10.4 into the CDO dataset, the value of minus 10.0 was entered for 2nd July instead.

This wrong limit of minus 10.0 was confirmed in an email from the Bureau sent to journalist Graham Lloyd, and also Griffith businessman Paul Salvestrin, on 4th July.

[...]

David Jones is the Manager of Climate Monitoring and Prediction services at the Bureau and would probably have overseen the installation of the smart cards.  Jones is also on-record stating that: “Truth be known, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it.”


http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/bureau-inconsistencies-need-urgent-independent-inquiry/


----------------------------------------------
Science? Magic tricks more like it.

Well I am not an active member nor a regular poster of reddit and i also do not understand how things works there. However if you do talk about banning bots there is no problem with that actually that is a normal action of a concerned member yet if it happens that they are only banning those who has opposite point of view with regards to this issue either they were bots or not that would be so unreasonable.

[X-POST] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/flat-earth-1009045

Although there are spaces in human culture where it is perfectly acceptable for irrational and illogical thoughts, and be paid very well for producing loads and loads of it: politics and religion.
Reddit is run by paid bots. It has been proven times and times again. I do my best and play my part as a botkiller on reddit as much as I can.

A resisting act would always be healthy. If people would just always believe to whatever things that are spreading then we will considered as an idiot. That is why there is what we called a logical reasoning because people think differently and that is how really it works that makes a human a human being. So banning them is really a piece of sh*t.

U.S. Submits Formal Notice To U.N. Of Withdrawal From Paris Climate Pact




The U.S. State Department has officially informed the United Nations it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement in a document issued on Friday, but left the door open to re-engaging if the terms improved for the United States.

The State Department said in a press release the United States would continue to participate in United Nations climate change meetings during the withdrawal process, which is expected to take at least three years.

“The United States supports a balanced approach to climate policy that lowers emissions while promoting economic growth and ensuring energy security,” the department said in the release.

President Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris deal in June, saying the accord would have cost America trillions of dollars, killed jobs, and hindered the oil, gas, coal and manufacturing industries.

But he also, at the time, said he would be open to renegotiating the deal, which was agreed by nearly 200 nations over the course of years – drawing ridicule from world and business leaders who said that would be impossible.

During a visit last month to Paris to meet French President Emmanuel Macron, the two discussed the deal and Trump told reporters “Something could happen with respect to the Paris accords, let’s see what happens.”

“As the President indicated in his June 1 announcement and subsequently, he is open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its businesses, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers,” the State Department said in its press release about the formal notice of withdrawal.

Republican U.S. congressional leaders have backed Trump’s move to exit the accord. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for example, said it was “another significant blow to the Obama administration’s assault on domestic energy production and jobs”.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-climate-usa-paris-idUSKBN1AK2FM?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

You mean what goes on into building one cell phone            has less damaging impact on Mother Nature than taking care of an animal Mother Nature built?

Hmm...

Again the planet lovers strike again with their virtual pet brain

 

Don't be so naïve they know they're bad however they're God's chosen ones so they get a free pass on being an asshole, go back to sleep.

People are just going to have to make do with virtual pet accessed via an app on their cell phones.  Anyone who is so greedy and self-aborbed that they cannot make this minor sacrifice in the interest of saving the planet should be encouraged to commit suicide.  Rich people can have a dog if they pay enough taxes, and genuinely wealthy people can actually keep a human child.  Humans are even worse for the Mother Earth than dogs and cats.

UCLA Study: Pet Dogs And Cats Play A Significant Role In Global Warming


When it comes to global warming, Fido and Fluffy are part of the problem, a new study by UCLA indicates.

Most cat or dog lovers would say they can’t imagine living in a world without pets, but as the threat of global warming increases, environmentally conscious pet lovers may need to make some tough choices, according to the study.

Pet ownership in the United States creates about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, UCLA researchers found. That’s the equivalent of driving 13.6 million cars for a year. The problem lies with the meat-filled diets of kitties and pooches, according to the study by UCLA geography professor Gregory Okin.

Dogs and cats are responsible for 25 to 30 percent of the impacts of meat production in the United States, said Orkin. Compared to a plant-based diet, meat production “requires more energy, land and water and has greater environmental consequences in terms of erosion, pesticides and waste,” the study found.

And what goes in, must come out. In terms of waste, Okin noted, feeding pets also leads to about 5.1 million tons of feces every year, roughly equivalent to the total trash production of Massachusetts.

https://patch.com/california/hollywood/fido-fluffy-are-hurting-environment-ucla-study-says

------------------------------------
The comment section tells me people are "woke"
 

... "The Scorpion and the Frog" is a reminder they do not understand the concept of earning a living honestly.

What, you mean now they are going to have to earn a living honestly?

... And make some people rich like with that Chicago Climate Exchange scam, among other carbon tax scams...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g961YA35-ow

The UK scientists are saying, in a very polite sort of a way, what we can express more succinctly.

Cook's study was a complete fraud, and it's been used to propagate lies.

there can never be one side where everybody would agree, that's just a fantasy that's not going to happen. Everybody is just being surrounded with the peers that believe in one thing. That's how the birds with the same feather was founded upon. You should have your own decision and believe in what you are trying to accomplish.

Citing the “97 percent consensus” talking point to silence debate on global warming is an unsuccessful distraction from more urgent public policy debates on the issue, according to a group of UK social scientists.

“Such efforts to force policy progress through communicating scientific consensus misunderstand the relationship between scientific knowledge, publics and policymakers,” sociologist Warren Pearce and others wrote in an academic commentary, published Monday.

“More important is to focus on genuinely controversial issues within climate policy debates where expertise might play a facilitating role,” Pearce and his co-authors wrote.

Pearce and his co-authors argue there needs to be a more “cosmopolitan approach” to the climate debate that doesn’t rely on quantifying a scientific consensus, but rather “more urgent matters of knowledge, values, policy framing and public engagement.”

“Recent efforts to communicate such scientific consensus attained a high public profile but it is doubtful if they can be regarded successful,” Pearce and his co-authors wrote.

“Rather than securing certainty that was absent before, this exercise has invited intense scrutiny to the judgments underpinning their claim, and generated further doubt,” they wrote.

For years, Democrats and environmentalists have cited research claiming that 97 percent of scientists agree human activities are warming the planet. The figure stems from a 2010 study led by Australian researcher John Cook.

Cook’s study examined thousands of scientific papers and interviewed their authors to claim about 97 percent of climate scientists “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

Former President Barack Obama used the 97 percent figure to undercut critics of his policies to fight global warming. NASA cites the Cook study as one of several purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on global warming.

The Daily Caller News Foundation has already reported on why Cook’s consensus figures are more a statistical sleight of hand than actual agreement. University of Delaware geologist David Legates and some colleagues wrote a paper in 2015, debunking the Cook paper.

Legates’ study found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly agreed that mankind is responsible for most of the warming since 1950.

But even if Cook’s 97 percent consensus is correct, it’s use has done little to sway the policy, according to Pearce.

Claiming there’s a broad consensus on global warming opens consensus enforcers up to criticism when skeptics start to find inconsistencies in the science. That only undermines the supposed 97 percent consensus.

Pearce wrote “the fact remains that in many fields of climate change research scientific consensus is elusive.”

“Scientific consensus exists among some relevant, small communities,” Pearce wrote, “but there are many fields relevant to climate change impacts where such a consensus does not hold.”


http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/24/enforcing-the-97-consensus-has-generated-further-doubt-about-global-warming/

All on board!