Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 203. (Read 636458 times)

hmm. Actually no. For  this Reddit /science people, the deniers are the ones with a closed mind. Since this is a fact then there is no need to let them speak any longer as there is not hope forcing them to come into their "open world"...

That's little close minded of them, everyone should be allowed to debate in an open world and scientists should be an example

Ah don't knows what tree stumps you be sitting on but here Melanie be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FPn5noN_qs

Oh Melanie!

You've transformed.

The requires government intervention to restore a natural balance.

Luckily freedom triumphs.

Climate change is responsible for people's skin color. True story. Her name is Melanin 

Isn't this defined as faith? I thought you believe in empirical data, not appeal to authority. Additionally if we all just trusted scientists for their word would it not be a simple task for one, or a small handful of famous guys to lie and convince a large proportion of the population? See how your lackadaisical attitude toward the data corrupts your perception while you claim the full authority of scientific empirical backing? You can't do both (unless you don't mind being full of shit).

And I must be racist too since those are Hispanic terms despite of the fact that I grew up in all black neighborhoods in inner city New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

Nye is obviously, like most people, ignorant about meteorology.  Most people are not so ignorant to confuse mechanics of hurricanes and tornados.  Maybe he lives somewhere where there are no hurricanes.

From the excerpt, I'd say embarrasingly uninformed.

Sad.

YOU are blaming holy climate change on El something and LA something?

DENIER!



EDITED TO ADD:  I wonder, now that they'd hidden away the embarrasing phrase "global warming" and gone with the fresh new one "climate change"....what even IS a denier of "climate change"?

It must be someone who claims those tornadoes were not caused by Bush, right?

Here, have a thousand or so of them....

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

I suppose these folks forgot about the regularly shifting El Nino and La Nina patterns. I was in high school in Southern California in the early 1980s and I remember the extreme rains due to that shifting pattern.

We are also seeing very cold weather this year in the Philippines and many powerful typhoons over the past three years, especially last year.

I see they are shifting the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change". I suppose their massive fuckup on predicting a warming trend isn't enough to embarrass the shit out of their junk "science".

"Once again I will quote a personal hero of mine Bill Nye"


Bill Nye "The Science Guy" was on Fox News's "America's News Headquarters" Saturday trying to make the case that despite it being "very difficult to mathematically connect" this year's tornado activity to global warming, "Tornadoes are almost certainly a consequence."

When host Uma Pemmaraju asked a seemingly simple question, "Are other countries seeing the same type of activity, the intensity of these tornadoes picking up in those regions as well," "The Science Guy" first seemed completely stumped, and then gave a rather absurd answer (video follows with transcript and commentary):

BILL NYE: The tornadoes very difficult to mathematically connect to climate change, but the rains, the extra warmth in the atmosphere, the extra water vapor in the atmosphere, that’s, those are facts. That’s the real deal. Now, we, we are patriots. We are from the U.S. I am. And you would like the U.S. to be the leader in addressing this problem. We would like to be out in front in trying to deal with whatever it is that’s holding in all this heat and creating all this extra water vapor in the atmosphere. Tornadoes are almost certainly a consequence.

It is indeed telling that "The Science Guy" didn't once mention the impact of this year's La Niña on tornado activity which most climatologists and meteorologists on both sides of the global warming debate agree is largely the culprit.

On the other hand, what would you expect from a guy with a degree in mechanical engineering?

But the best was still to come when Pemmaraju asked a pretty simple question, and "The Science Guy" looked like he had been asked to prove Riemann's Hypothesis:

UMA PEMMARAJU, HOST AMERICA’S NEWS HEADQUARTERS: Are other countries seeing the same type of activity, the intensity of these tornadoes picking up in those regions as well?

NYE: Other countries?

PEMMARAJU: Other countries with tornadoes?

NYE: Well, there’s not that many other countries that have the configuration of North America to make tornadoes. And the word “hurricane,” you know, is a word coined in the Caribbean, like, so this is a unique, unique area in that regard. We have the Gulf of Mexico. We have this access for cold air from Canada or from the Arctic. And these two things conspire to move the jet stream, and then that helps carry this extra water vapor across this part of the North America. So, it’s a unique place, and you don’t have this kind, you don’t have tornadoes in Norway, for example. It’s just set up different, the weather’s set up differently. Here in the U.S. it’s a serious problem.

Well, not exactly.

Contrary to "The Science Guy's" odd view on this topic, tornadoes have been observed on every continent on this planet with the exception of Antartica. A study of insurance records across the globe finds tornadoes causing significant losses in Europe, India, Japan, South Africa, and Australia.

Although the United States typically has more tornadoes than any other country, as a function of land area, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom both actually have more.

Also contrary to today's conventional wisdom, Bangladesh is the nation with the most tornado-related deaths averaging 179 per year having also experienced the deadliest tornado in history on April 26, 1989, killing approximately 1300. That country has had at least 19 tornadoes that have killed more than 100 people, almost half the total of the rest of the world.

So much for "The Science Guy's" claim "there’s not that many other countries that have the configuration of North America to make tornadoes."

As for his statement "you don’t have tornadoes in Norway," take a gander at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-HyyXoY44




http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/05/28/bill-nye-science-guy-falsely-claims-not-many-countries-besides-us-hav

Firstly, I did not reference it because I did not see the particular conspiracy documentary you watched and so I do not know the details of it,

Secondly as for your comment "...is an outright lie, until and if you produce evidence from the major names and published work by the scientists skeptical of global warming...."

I know no such scientists skeptical of global warming because I don't watch nonsense and no credible scientists are skeptical of it. I am referring to the deniers on Reddit who were banned, and from what I have seen most deniers are not any kind of credible scientist, and usually quote conspiracy circumstances they witnessed in a documentary they watched on the internet. I chose to trust credible scientists and the extensive research they have done, and papers they have written, written I might add from a variety of different academic fields on the matter,

here is an awesome video posted by Bill Nye which explains it in the simplest of manners even a child could understand. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/3play_1/climate-change-101-with-bill-nye-the-science/?no-ist

Or of course also here in a live NBC debate posted on the Richard Dawkins website, http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2014/2/16/bill-nye-marsha-blackburn-debate-climate-change#

yes, every famous scientist, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson,  and countless more you don't of, publish work all the time siting new evidence, and frankly I don't have the time or patience to find and site them all for you but I 100% trust them, because they usually side with everyone else engaged in science all over the world, over one instance with Al gore (even if it turns out to be true)
I mean, one guy lying and going to far does not undo all the other scientific research that has been conducted independently by different human beings all over the world.

In short, what you are suggesting, would require  Climatologists, Meteorologist and Marine Biologists(only to name a few sciences engaged in this in one way or another) all from different fields and all from all different countries around the world (that have nothing to do with each other I might add) to be collaborating in one way or another to distort the evidence they all independently found, and doing this with a common goal of lying to us all. I wish you could understand how silly that sounds to me.

I see you are very well informed and watch a lot of good documentaries, but you are sadly getting your information from the wrong places and I suggest you research the topic further.

Once again I will quote a personal hero of mine Bill Nye: "The information you get from social media is not a substitute for academic discipline at all."

lastly check out this article written by famous Science Writer from The Associated Press & Adjunct Professor at New York University, Seth Borenstein talking about all the things we have less evidence of then climate change, it includes things like:
   * that cigarettes kill
   * the age of the universe
   * that vitamins make you healthy
   * that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous

Read it here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/what-95-certainty-warming-means-scientists

Let be honest here, its not really a debate at all..

Thats all I have to say on the matter, I cant explain my views any clearer than that.

If I understand you right, the warmies want their cake and want to eat it too.

This kind of twisty double talk is the problem not the solution.

While the article fabricates out of whole cloth the following straw man...

"The rallying cry of the denialists..."

It ignores the 100x citable media tripe which attributes the latest extreme weather phenomena to AGW.

So are you disputing the facts I presented about Gore and Hansen?  I assume you are since you attempt to place in conspiracy category.

But you are wrong, as that is what happened.  So now if I read your trend correctly you would ban me from stating that.  But those things are true, so you'd be banning stuff that was real.

And that's the problem.

However I will take it one step further and note that your assertion that "deniers believe"...

The Claim, that climate change is a hoax, and naturally occurring. Not caused by man.

...is an outright lie, until and if you produce evidence from the major names and published work by the scientists skeptical of global warming....

In other words, I believe you've fallen for a made up demonization of certain people, which is without basis in fact and does not represent their views.  Therefore, you don't know what you are talking about.  But feel free to quote from Spencer, Lindzen, Watts, as you like, to support your position.

Thats the great thing about free speech, you can choose to disagree without all the name calling and demeaning.

I agree but what do you do when a majority of people start choosing to ignore the truth, People out their deny all kinds of things, and sometimes we need to tell them to shut up, there are all kinds of "jerks" out there, there are people who deny the holocaust, there are people who deny evolution.

I am all for proposing new ideas and new viewpoints, but when people chose to start making up evidence and believing well crafted documentaries over experts and scientific research from multiple different academic fields and then they start gaining followers of dimwitted people who believe them, I get a little concerned for the sanity of our world and the definition of the word truth.

To Quote a personal hero of mine Bill Nye: "The information you get from social media is not a substitute for academic discipline at all."

That is all, I did not mean to offend anyone.

Tolarance and free speech as long as you agree with my side. Sounds like a political party I know of in the US. You know "there is a war on woman" but sara palin is a cunt folks.

No one wants to prevent you from shouting hoax, if you believe in conspiracy theories, that's your problem, but Reddit agrees with me apparently.

Secondly of course the seasons change, good job pointing that out captain science that's not what was being discussed. nor is it evidence for what is currently happening to our planet. as a matter of fact it is a perfect example of what climate change deniers try and use as evidence and why you should dismiss them.

There are several different fields of scientific research pointing out the current circumstances, and it would have to be a massive conspiracy, with millions of individuals all over the world working together to lie to us about climate change and cover it up. and to what end?

If that's what you want to believe, you go ahead, I guess your entitled to your opinion. but I would agree with Reddit banning your nonsense, cause I am entitled to my opinion.

Really?

But of course there is a component of the whole of assertions and argument concerning climate change which is in fact a hoax, and of course there is a component of the arguments against which calls the hoax out as a hoax.

As an example, Dr. James Hansen and Al Gore's rigging of the air conditioners so they did not work, prior to the August 1988 Senate hearings on man made climate change, was a hoax.  I'm quite happy to call it out as a hoax.

Do you have a problem with that?  Why would anyone want to prevent me from shouting "Hoax" on that?  I can provide many other examples like that, where lies, mis statements should be pointed out.

And of course climate change occurs naturally, not caused by man.  Night and day.  Winter and summer.  Ice ages and interglacials.   There is a controversy over whether man has a major or minor part in one small area of the totality of "climate change".

I am not seeing from what you have written that you are very knowledgeable on the subject.