Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 207. (Read 636458 times)

Don't forget I was directly replying to the dude saying satanists are in control of the UN. Not saying he is totally wrong but I had to keep my answer to him simple and to the point.

omg. i have to quote this. so funny. here we go direct quote.


 

Well, it's the nutcase of the week there.  I wonder how many of these so called "acclaimed experts" would shrink to sniveling wannabe great status if big green money wasn't acclaiming them for it's own financial reasons.

Suzuki isn't that smart, doesn't have brilliant ideas, and does not deserve hardly any one's time or attention.

See an acclaimed AGW proponent get shredded in Q&A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOK8JhgwmZ8

I think you left out the most important part, which is that the warmies want to tell everyone else how to think, live and act.  Aside from that part I couldn't care less what they believe.

geologic history is right on the surface on the moon, dude, and it says that surface shows a couple billion years of history.  A crater a hundred million years old is considered a "young" crater.

No, educated people believe in climate change and seasons. They know it is not the same. The purpose of this thread is how much of an impact humans have on it, a.k.a. http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change/123-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory
This thread is about a group of people telling another group of people to shut up because "the science is settled". I am just a witness of all of this and trully remarkable scientists right here are saying that the studies are far from over. But everything is framed as "deniers love to eat garbage and swim in freshly breached tanker oiled oceans" or "warmists are making a figure 8 shape with their body, their head up their asses (Yes! many asses)".

Everyone loves our planet(mostly). People want to find a solution for growth while keeping our little blue ball as Exxon-Valdezless and droneless as possible.

The freemasons are pretty cool. I agree http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuK4-YuWod0

I propose two categories of AGW deniers.

• Those who deny for scientific reasons such as my point about impossible to falsify.
• Those due to hallucination who are unable to discern falsifiable fact from kooky conspiracies.

I further assume that all those in the first category wish to be disassociated with all those in the second.

Yes there is climate change but educated people call it "seasons" not global warming.
Want to use bigfoot and ufos to setup a strawman type attack? Lucifereans control the Us govt because usa and the supposed democracy was formed by freemasons. Freemasons at the 30-33 levels openly worship lucifer and admit it in their own books(Albert Pike for one).

Now you know why America has 50 pentagrams on its flag and a giant pentagram designed into the street layout in washington DC with the tip of the pentagram pointing right on the white house.

And LOL if you get your truth from wiki answers...the geologic column doesnt exist anywhere on the earth and without that the whole idea of millions of years is nothing but a religion backed by the masons and their govts and media

1 john 5:19
"For we are children of GOD and we know that the whole world lies under the control of the evil one(satan)"

To be a fool is a pleasant ride for a fool....

Climate change does not exist? Of course it does. Do you have a window? Look outside.

Have you ever seen an ostrich's feet? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_ostriches_dinosaurs

How come UFOs, Bigfoot and the Chupacabra never meet with the Lucierians at the UN? Not enough parking space?

There is no climate change...when I post on this thread facts exposing your climate change theory or exposing the religion of evolution some of you just glaze over and keep spouting propaganda...I dont know why you want to live like an Ostrich but its your problem if you want to believe the lucifereans and their United Nations Propaganda...If you want to be prepared for their pre Armageddon false reality....to bad for you

This exceptionally cold and snowy winter has shown that government climate scientists were dead wrong when it came to predicting just how cold this winter would be, while the 197-year old Farmers’ Almanac predicted this winter would be “bitterly cold”.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted temperatures would be “above normal from November through January across much of the lower 48 states.”

This, however, was dead wrong. As Bloomberg notes, the CPC underestimated the “mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.”

CPC grades its prediction accuracy on a Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfect accuracy) to -50 (no better than playing pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded).

CPC’s score for October’s weather predictions for November through January was -22 and the September weather prediction for October through December was at -23.

“Not one of our better forecasts,” Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center’s acting director, told Bloomberg Businessweek.

What actually happened this winter? A “polar vortex” swept down and caused every state except Florida to experience snowfall and brought about 4,406 record low temperatures across the U.S. in January along with 1,073 record snowfalls.

The most recent winter storm that slammed into the eastern U.S. last week knocked out power for more than 1 million people in the Southeast and caused 21 deaths along the East Coast. More than 2,500 flights were delayed last Friday and 1,500 were canceled from East Coast airports.

Who could have predicted such a harsh winter? The Farmers Almanac did, according to a CBS News report from August 2013. The nearly 200-year old publication hit newsstands last summer and predicted that “a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey,” and also predicted “a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.”

“We’re using a very strong four-letter word to describe this winter, which is C-O-L-D. It’s going to be very cold,” Sandi Duncan, the almanac’s managing editor, told CBS News in August.

While there was thankfully no snow on Super Bowl Sunday, those sad Broncos fans trying to get back home from New Jersey had some trouble as snow started falling the day after the most important football game of the year.

The Midwest and Great Lakes regions also saw terribly cold weather and record levels of snowfall this winter. Major Midwest cities like Chicago, Cincinnati and Detroit have seen record levels of snowfall. Chicago alone saw 45.8 inches of snow by the end of January, and, as of Friday, the Great Lakes were 90 percent frozen over.

The Midwest and New England were hit with frigid weather and snow for long periods of time. So long, in fact, that there were propane shortages and natural gas prices spiked due to increased need for heating and supply bottlenecks.

The Farmers’ Almanac makes predictions based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles — a prediction system that has remained largely unchanged since its first publication in 1818. While modern scientists don’t put much stock in the almanac’s way of doing things, the book says it’s accurate about 80 percent of the time.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/

That is a more balanced summary of you appraisal of the evidence at this time. Thanks.


That is a meta-theory of AGW, not a theory of AGW.

What if historically the oceans are releasing more carbon as they warm than estimates of current human releases, then your experiment can't falsify AGW rather maybe it can falsify the portion of GW due to carbon (but I didn't really think carefully about your experiment so I say "maybe").

When I considered this issue a few years ago, the best explanation I saw for the 600 - 1000 lag time of carbon rise trailing temperature rise on the ice core charts, was that the oceans release more carbon as they warm.

So then how to prove that the greenhouse effect is not an effect instead of a cause of GW?

Falsification requires a real world verification of the theory. This is why climate science is just cherry picking models to portions of the system. To falsify the earth's climate by definition would require a test that can change the variables and measure the results over thousands of years. Because the earth is a complex system that adapts to change. When they have a model that can predict all of the climate variables over 1000s of years into the future, then we can talk about the predictive power of a model. Predicting into the past is not prediction.


Agreed they can move the goal posts at-will, because there was never falsifiable science w.r.t. to:

1. Does carbon cause global warming or vice versa
2. Does mankind cause global warming

The individual experiments they do are falsifiable w.r.t. to whether some meta-theoretical model of climate variables fits the meta outcome (often over very small times scales and more importantly in the past and not future predictive power, which is really just cherry picking models). But this is not the holistic (in all possible variables and causes and effects) direct theoretical falsification of the two items above. Such holistic, non-meta falsification is impossible, which is this will always be political bullshit junk science.

If I have missed something, please correct me.

It was the scientific skeptics who bucked the 'consensus' and said the Earth was round.




In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”

But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today’s scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?



[...]
We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.

For instance, in 1994 we published an article in the journal Nature showing that the actual global temperature trend was “one-quarter of the magnitude of climate model results.” As the nearby graph shows, the disparity between the predicted temperature increases and real-world evidence has only grown in the past 20 years. …

The climate-change-consensus community points to such indirect evidence of warming as glaciers melting, coral being bleached, more droughts and stronger storms. Yet observations show that the warming of the deep atmosphere (the fundamental sign of carbon-dioxide-caused climate change, which is supposedly behind these natural phenomena) is not occurring at an alarming rate: Instruments aboard NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association satellites put the Mid-Tropospheric warming rate since late 1978 at about 0.7 degrees Celsius, or 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years. For the same period, the models on average give 2.1 degrees Celsius, or 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years (see graph).

[...]
“Consensus” science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors.


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

... I would believe more sexier witches instead... http://i.imgur.com/GlaxoZI.png

Let me get this straight. 

Because it's colder than a witch's tit we are going to see more girls in bikinis?

With no end in sight, the winter of 2014 rages on, ushering in frigid Arctic air and dumping record-breaking snow and ice on much of the nation. This season, ice coverage on Lake Superior has exceeded other measurements in recent history.
"By the long shot this is the most ice we've had on Lake Superior in 20 years," Associate Professor Jay Austin of the Large Lakes Observatory in Duluth, Minn., said.
During a typical winter, 30 to 40 percent of the Great Lakes are covered by ice, according to AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Brett Anderson.



Usually Arctic air swept over the Great Lakes creates lake-effect snow, but modifies the air, making it warmer. This usually makes regions from Ohio through the Northeast a little warmer than it otherwise would be.
However, this winter 80 to 90 percent of the Great Lakes are covered in ice. As of Thursday, Feb. 13, 2014, Lake Superior was classified as 90 percent covered.



"The Arctic air masses don't get warmed up as much because of all the snow and ice," Anderson said. "There has not been much of a thaw so the ice keeps building up."
The last time in recent history the ice coverage was even close to this winter's percentage was the winter of 1993/94. That winter ice coverage was measured at 90.7 percent.
Unlike a pond, the depth of the Great Lakes prevent it from being a completely frozen sheet of ice, but instead the ice atop the lakes can actually move with the wind, according to Austin. Due to the ability of the ice to move around, the thickness of the ice across the lakes vary and therefore researchers do not know how thick the ice is in all portions of the lake.
So, this makes it hard for scientists to define what freezing over entirely means.
Depending on who you ask, Lake Superior already has frozen over, Austin stated. However, with two to three weeks to go until the typical peak of ice coverage in mid-March, the Lakes will only freeze even more.
"The ice will become more robust, we are going to have more ice rather than less over the next three weeks," Austin said.

Other than the ice jam worries, the ice coverage on the Great Lakes, specifically on Lake Superior, is mounting concerns for the region's climate.
"With all of this ice, all the sunlight that hits the surface of the lake is going to get bounced back out into space, so it's going to take longer to get warmer this spring and summer," Austin said. "The lake is going to just start warming this year when it will start cooling off for next year."

This could bring a relatively cool year for the communities surrounding the lake.
However, the silver lining of the massive ice coverage is that perhaps it can prevent lake water levels from lowering like they did just last year.
"With the ice cover, less water gets evaporated so lake levels stay high and help preserve some of the water," Anderson said.
Regardless of the impending impacts of the ice on the region, one thing is for sure, the ice isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.
An impending return of the now-infamous polar vortex for the middle of next week ill send temperatures from the Midwest to the Northeast plummeting 15 to 20 degrees below normal. As it drops down to the James Bay in Canada, it will deliver another blast of arctic air for the area.
"This type of airmass will give the Great Lakes the potential for a new satellite-era ice coverage record," Anderson said.
The winters of 1993 and 1994 had the previous highest since we started monitoring ice coverage with satellites about 30 years ago.
According to AccuWeather.com Long Range Expert Paul Pasetlok, "Because some of the Great Lakes are fairly shallow they can recover quickly later in the spring, so that there may be minimal impact on land area temperatures for most of the summer."

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/nearly-frozen-lake-superior-ma/23439393


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But but but... Polar vortex will make the planet hotter. It's a fact.

Hey, give the robbers, rapists and burglars and murderers a break, will you?  You want them out working in the cold, the rain, the snow?  They have feelings too.  They could catch pneumonia and die.

A new study broadens a notion held by the earliest criminologists: Periods of higher temperatures — on an hour-by-hour or week-to-week basis — are likely to produce more crime.

The study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a research and consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., suggests global warming will trigger more crimes including murders and rapes over the next century, with social costs estimated to run as high as $115 billion.

Between 2010 and 2099, climate change can be expected to 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, the study published this week in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management says.

Compared with the number of crimes expected to occur during this period in the absence of climate change, these figures represent a 2.2% increase in murders, a 3.1% increase in cases of rape, a 2.3% increase in aggravated assaults, a 1.2% increase in simple assaults, a 1% increase in robberies, a 0.9% increase in burglaries, a 0.5% increase in cases of larceny and a 0.8% increase in cases of vehicle theft, the study says.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-crime-20140219,0,2765136.story#axzz2tos4AI95

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course let's not forget about this fact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCCBFTRTXEE