Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 206. (Read 636458 times)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


ADL Condemns Spencer’s Nazi Analogy

February 25, 2014,  Atlanta, Georgia … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today denounced remarks by University of Alabama – Huntsville professor Roy Spencer who wrote on his blog that those who refer to him as a climate change “denier” should be called “global warming Nazis” and that they “are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause.”

He also claims those who advocate for policies to slow global warming are “like the Nazis” in that they are fascist and anti-capitalist. The post is also accompanied by an image of a swastika.

Shelley Rose, ADL Southeast Interim Regional Director issued the following statement:

University of Alabama Professor Roy Spencer’s analogy of proponents of global warming to Nazis is outrageous and deeply offensive.  This analogy is just the latest example of a troubling epidemic of comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust.

It has become too common to use comparisons to the Holocaust and Nazi imagery to attack people with opposing views, whether the issue is global warming, immigration or stem-cell research.

The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve better.  Their deaths should not be used for political points or sloganeering.  This type of comparison diminishes and trivializes the Holocaust. There is no place for it in civil discussions.

Shelley Rose |Interim Regional Director

Anti-Defamation League | 3490 Piedmont Road; Suite 610 | Atlanta, Georgia 30305

Phone: 404-262-3470 I Fax: 404-262-3548 I Cell: 678-938-1399 I [email protected]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/bizzare-anti-defamation-league-apparently-gives-a-green-light-to-defamation-of-climate-skeptics-by-comparing-them-to-holocaust-deniers/

Global warming isn’t just going to melt the Arctic and flood our cities—it’s also going to make Americans more likely to kill each other.

That’s the conclusion of a controversial new study that uses historic crime and temperature data to show that hotter weather leads to more murders, more rapes, more robberies, more assaults, and more property crimes.

“Looking at the past, we see a strong relationship between temperature and crime,” says study author Matthew Ranson, an economist with policy consulting firm Abt Associates. “We think that is likely to continue in the future.”

Just how much more crime can we expect? Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s warming projections, Ranson calculated that from 2010 to 2099, climate change will “cause” an additional “22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft” in the US.

Ranson acknowledges that those results represent a relatively small jump in the overall level of crime—a 2.2 percent increase in murder and a 3.1 percent increase in rape, for instance. Still, says John Roman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, those numbers add up to “a lot of victims” over the course of the century.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/climate-change-murder-rape

he may be right on that but I don't see it as being a useful avenue of thought.  Arguing in terms such as "most" or "fair amounts" or "the majority" of a quantity is fundamentally unscientific.  The correct question here is the numerical quantity which corresponds to climate sensitivity(as a function of man's industrialization) and that does not exist.  Commonly used and discussed is the number relating to climate sensitivity as a function of CO2 (with all other atmospheric components being included therein as some multiplier of the co2 sensitivity, example methane).

"Warming is beneficial" is a set of concepts I've always liked.  I can not recall seeing serious rebuttals that held up under examination to the idea that 0.5-1C or so warmer was "bad".  Of course, this is the most dangerous of all Denier notions, that "warming was good".

Incidentally, the Warmie argue that "extreme weather events will become more prevalent" has never been a mainstream concept that most scientists agreed with, neither should it be.  It would be something that meteorologists would be qualified to talk about.  I see boatloads of issues with this generalization and consider it more of an irrefutable hypothesis than any sort of scientific theory.

Clearly it is best to just banish the Deniers to Planet Denier.

Obama’s science czar: Opposing climate views outside the ‘mainstream scientific opinion’



White House science czar Dr. John Holdren wasn’t in the mood to be contradicted on whether global warming was causing “extreme weather.” Holdren described climate scientists whose work contradicts the White House’s global warming claims as outside the “scientific mainstream.”

Holdren was asked by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions to cite scientific data that supported claims that droughts and other weather events were being made worse by global warming. Sessions then cited contradicting evidence from climate scientists, including former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer and University of Colorado climate scientist Roger Pielke, Jr.

Holdren countered that the likes of Pielke and Spencer “are not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion on this point.”




http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/obamas-science-czar-opposing-climate-views-outside-the-mainstream-scientific-opinion/

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/

The touch screen systems are going to likely cause about a third of the fast food staff to be unnecessary.  Now with the robots actually making the hamburgers - slicing lettuce, tomatoes, operating the grill....

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/burgeon-hamburger-making-robot-makes-360-burgers-hour-101600272.html#dfy23pt


What nice nice green carbon footprint we get from firing those useless, inefficient humans!

Pretty soon? They are already here (2011)
http://news.cnet.com/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-screen-cashiers/8301-17938_105-20063732-1.html

You know what?  Pretty soon robots will make hamburgers.  Better than burger flippers.  Way better.  Then the McD can be even greener, because when it computes it's total "carbon impact", it doesn't have to include the carbon cost of the salaried employees! 

I suppose they meant to imply a Big Mac is a bad thing, but they failed miserably. Also methane is a fuel or can be synthesized into fertilizer.

Socialists are uneconomic.

Fat (even saturated) is a good thing. Fats from processed oils not good.  Virgin coconut and olive oil the best, all the soybean oil, corn oil, etc is deadly.

Global effects of volcano eruptions on T have long been well understood, and in fact were incorporated in Hansen's 1988 models of climate and temperature which started this entire perversion of science.

Cooling effects of volcanoes last in the order of 2-3 years.

Because any serious scientist wouldn't give them the answer they wanted, I remember when there was that whole scare about the particle collider awhile back, classically started by Americans and the scientists involved in that project were clearly borderline telling them "That's just fucking stupid".

Bill Nye... the science guy. 
The press still is confused about who is a scientist. Maybe he's a scientist compared to Marsha Blackburn, but any of my sixth grade students know more than her. Why can't they just get a serious scientist who is studying this?

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/see-something-say.html?ref=comicbooksandstrips#1

Research could explain why rate of climate change appeared to slow down after 1998 – but experts say volcanoes only offer ‘temporary respite’ from rising temperatures






The impact of volcanic eruptions on global warming could provide a new explanation for the so-called “pause” used by sceptics to deny climate change is happening, scientists have said.

According to a study in the US, models for predicting the rate at which temperatures around the world would rise from 1998 onwards did not take into consideration the measurable impact volcanoes can have.

Rather than contributing to global warming, eruptions release particles into the air that reflect sunlight – causing temperatures to drop.

Experts from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California said this phenomenon was not taken into account when predictions were made – offering an explanation for why the world seemed to stop heating up.

“We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early 21st century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998,” wrote Dr Benjamin Santer in the journal Nature Geoscience.

“To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.”

Powerful volcanic eruptions send small sulphur droplets, or aerosols, high into the atmosphere where they act as a mirror to reflect the sun's rays and prevent them warming the ground.

In 1991, the second largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century occurred when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines exploded with enormous force, killing almost 1,000 people and causing widespread damage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/volcanic-eruptions-contributed-to-global-warming-pause-scientists-claim-9147856.html

Why information sources like whatsupwiththat.com have become so highly rated.

The rundown for this Sunday's show



[...]
And there are some stories which do not have two sides.  The climate change debate is one of them.  Nevertheless, many news organizations continue to equate the skeptics with the scientists.  This week NBC’s Meet the Press faced criticism for its debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Rep. Marsha Blackburn.  We’ll talk to Michio Kaku from the City University of New York and CBS News as well as Jack Mirkinson, Senior Media Editor at the Huffington Post.

http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/21/the-rundown-for-this-sundays-show-3/

He's wrong?

He asserted that satanists are in control of the UN, which is an "Irrefutable hypothesis".  You cannot prove him wrong, because obviously the satanists are invisible when they do their control ops and nobody can see them.

The reason I mention this is that much of the global warming/climate change nonsense is also based on Irrefutable Hypotheses.

For example, "The big ice storm was caused by Global Warming!".

Science works ONLY WITH Refutable Hypotheses.

Yes, you do need the voice of opposition, otherwise we WOULD NOT HAVE FOUND OUT THE OZONE HOLE THEORY WAS COMPLETELY WRONG!

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/ozone-hole-theory-faces-lab-problems.html

lol....

Please don't use the Daily Mail as a scientific source.