Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 190. (Read 636443 times)

Utter loony rubbish.  Wikipedia has been repeatedly shown to be just as accurate as other sources of information.  You don't understand how the editors etc on Wikipedia work.  Seriously though, go google "wikipedia accuracy".  No 1 source is perfect, not sure why you would have an issue with wikipedia.  You sure as hell can't complain about reddit if you have issues with how wikipedia works.

The fact that there have been spikes in the past 100s of thousands of years, has nothing to do with the subject of manmade global warming which is far far far far more rapid.  Your point is nonsense.  One does not follow from the other.  I could explain with an analogy but the loony tunes around here still wouldn't get it.

I have no opinion on IPCC.  I remember something about this back when it happened, but it isn't particularly strong evidence that manmade global warming is no occurring.  If you say so tho, bub.

http://www.progressivestoday.com/left-wing-environmentalists-enlist-evangelical-scientist-as-ambassador-to-win-over-skeptical-christians/



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would that make a Christian to become a polytheist if he starts believing in Anthropogenic Global Warming?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63013

hmmokeee.. so what about scientific proofs that actually links human activity to such cycle?
im not denying there is pollution. but that comes with the package of progress and demographic's exponential growth i guess... ^^
and i'd be much more concerned about things you can actually see such as the nuclear disaster happening in Fukushima, trash islands or massive deforestation...
yet no one talks about em.. guess its just not profitable enough..



just fed up with those whining climate fanatics thats just cant come up with real scientific evidence other than that goofy claim about it being worse than evaaaa by looking at ice melting..
focus people, there is much much worse coming after us.. and if you are happy paying yet another (carbon) taxe... dayium you stupid little sheeps

So even though for 20 years it has not warmed, you think it has?

Yes it is.  And yes, it does show that the Earth was warm/warmer many times before the current events.  But no, it does not DISPROVE that man has caused this current cycle.  You can always say "well, even though this current cycle shows the same periodicity, THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT".

Or something like that.  "This time it's sort of different."   "This time it's worse."

Against these arguments the Warmies have made the mistake of claiming "It's hotter than ever before" eg the so called Hockey Stick argument.  To do that they had to ignore the Medieval Warm Period and the "Little Ice Age" - they had to get rid of obvious natural deviation.

Unfortunately, the last 20 years just have not warmed like they predicted....

wikipedia is one of the biggest piles of shit out there, Im not surprised your attracted to that site.  You can change the information like they do at the IPCC to meet your needs.  The purpose of the graph is to show you that humans arent responsible for spikes in temp and co2 because we werent here! What do you have to say about the IPCC getting caught faking data and colluding in emails.  If there is any kind of threat, why would they have to do this?  I bet you these scientist will gain from carbon taxes.

Don't worry about global warming.
The earth is still kind of cool right now:

I read Reception and criticism and even if you take that under consideration there are still many other things that are presented in the movie, that gives you something to think about it. And Ofcom did not find that the programme materially misled the audience as to cause harm or offence

Thought i might be posting this pic on every page of this thread.
THIS is scientific research. 

If you can spare an hour for this, I would suggest following it up with reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle and in particular the "Reception and Criticism" portion.

I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if someone already posted this, but there are those who believe that the global worming caused by co2 is really a deception invented to promote nuclear power plants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=52Mx0_8YEtg#t=2359
The link takes you to a part in a video that explains this, but if you have time I encourage you watch the whole movie

ROFL.  I just looked at that some more.  So the point is that we are at a peak temperature in a 100,000 year cycle.  I don't even see the relevance, except to show that yes the climate changes greatly in cycles that are literally off multiple orders of magnitude when compared to the effects of manmade global warming.

Honestly, I don't even know what the point of that graph is in relationship to what we are discussing.  I think it takes a special mentally ill brain full of weird biases that I can't understand because they're not based on logical thinking.   You are talking about changes occurring over 100,000 year cycles, when everyone else is talking about something on a 100 year scale.  The rate of change is not anywhere comparable except perhaps in direction... but it has to go in one of 2 directions, eh ?  

His post is interesting but a graph does not make a fact.  Do you seriously not understand that ?

I was actually going to thank him for his post, because even though it may be bullshit, it may not be.  Regardless it is a reference to evidence.  That is the first I have seen that in here.

No one BEGINS to argue why the basic science behind global warming is false.  NO ONE.   Why is it so hard ?

I like how a subreddit doesn't want to read the ravings of the lunatics, but the lunatics feel entitled to waste everyone's time.  You do little but prove the necessity of said rules.

As for the other loony tunes asking me how I've believed in global warming for 20 years.  The answer is that I've believed in the underlying causes and science.  Not everything has to be directly demonstrated to be believed.

The same loony who claims to be a professor (yea, and he was on gilligan's island ! ROFL)  wants to know logical fallacies... while everyone completely ignores my request for the fallacies in what we are discussing.... ie basic global warming.  

However, to start with in that post alone, you are appealing to your vague credentials in an unrelated argument.  "I am a professor therefore... "  that is a logical fallacy right there.  Appeal to authority.  I can pick apart the babbling nonsense from you guys all day, but really..  

It is better to just go about it like Reddit.  

Wow, are non-scientists still denying climate change?  I wonder what year it'll be when they learn what's up.  How long did it take until they accepted the world isn't flat?

I like the idea of operating in the arctic regions where we are closer to the liquid phase of CO2 and just burying the shit somehow.  Nuclear enengy would seem to be logical to use for such an operation, though only the newer less risky designs.  I appreciate energy savings of leaving it in CO2 form of course.  If only we could get fusion going one of these days...

I'm dubious about the plant surface idea.  My suspicion is that if it were that easy then evolution would have more-or-less solved the problem.  Water supply would be an issue.  Getting some sort of green slime growing in the ocean seems like a more promising thing.  Lord knows what kind of management issues that might provoke however.  Also, most complex hydrocarbons created by plants are prone to getting eaten by animals and we get most of our problem right back again.

As always, these thought experiments are kind of entertaining.

Yes I understand but if you look at what I said about 1/10" additional biomass, this is basically a similar implementation.  Creating carbon compounds by taking co2 out of the air, putting them into dirt.  This is very efficient because (although it constitutes minor terraforming of terra) the entire green photosynthetic surface of the planet is used.

There are various versions of this concept.  Some make more sense and are more practical than others.  But IMHO these direct methods are smarter than things like windmills and solar power, where they do not compete economically with coal, natural gas or nuclear.  Some of the new nuclear reactors, such as those using thorium, also show great promise.

None of these actual, practical engineering or scientific concepts can be helped by alarmist hysteria about global warming, in fact they are all harmed by it.  Almost all of the government funding and/or penalties I have seen have had negative consequences, likely because the only things funded are those susceptible to graft and corruption.

Of course nanotech would need an energy source.  Solar comes to mind.  IIRC, the Krebs (Kerbs?) cycle is not very thermodynamicly efficient and less so than photovoltaics.  In a nanotech scenario the process would/could be done over a fairly broad area and arbitrarily long duration and in a location which had favorable solar flux.

Of course we are a long way from the technology (I think...sometimes such things are classified) but it is at the very least a kind of an interesting thought experiment.

 - edit: slight

Just a side note you are talking to a guy that used to teach logic in college.
LOL...
So why don't you point out some of these logical fallacies?

I rather thought you might have exhibited one when you claimed you'd believed in global warming for the last 20 years during which it was not warming.  Perhaps you'd like to explain that?

It is worth exploring, even though we may not have the technology yet to do it.  The immediate problem with this is that bad or terrible implementations get forced through political means.   Example, carbon sequest from coal power plants.  

What the problem is here is that the products of combustion is very stable molecule co2, and you have to put much energy back in to do anything with that molecule.  If you burned a fuel to get energy, then it is pointless to use energy to reconvert the co2.   There are a few exceptions which have to do with plausible solids with carbon coming directly out of the furnace.  But remember the molecule, CO2?  The O2 which was input to the furnace needs to go somewhere too....

This is why my simple idea of doing the job at the S Pole is the most energy efficient way to do the job.   In reality doing ANYTHING in Antarctica is extremely difficult or impossible. 

Another way to look at the problem is just re engineer grass and other natural plants; adding 1/10 of an inch of biomass to the areas on the planet where there is vegetation solves the entire problem.  Again, we don't quite know how to do this but it is a direction that would definitely work.