Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 210. (Read 636443 times)

Edit to insert follow up:

In other news, the end of the last ice age and melting of glaciers in the Northern hemisphere was proven to be from dinosaur farts, which ultimately led to their own demise.

climate change deniers are not denying that glaciers used to be here and now they are not, they are denying that scientists are unbiased, and they are denying that climate change should be THE driver to economic and regulatory policies.

There's a certain fraction of the human race that has evolved as authoritarian controllers, and that's what they compulsively do.  So it's not quite correct to brush them off as do-gooders.  They want not to tell but to force their ideas on you me and everybody.  In quite a few cases, they are both stupider and more ignorant than us.

But almost no one is taught or understoods this history.

Add to the list of litter...

fascism, totalitarian concepts, 'sustainability' used to keep third world people down, and eugenics....

The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970. It was also Lenin's hundredth birthday. The coincidence was not intentional.

In fact, part of the point of Earth Day was to distance the nascent environmentalist movement from New Left critiques of consumer society, suburban development, and nuclear waste. In an attempt to avoid charges of "watermelon" politics - green on the outside, red on the inside - the message of the early environmental movement, as one Greenpeace slogan explicitly stated, was "I'm not a Red, I'm a Green." As environmentalism went mainstream, green nonprofits grew rich and powerful on corporate donations and adopted conciliatory strategies aimed at greening the world one brand name at a time.


[...]
The failure of the American left to engage more substantially on environmental issues at home has real consequences for the expansion of neoliberalism worldwide.

The history of environmentalism is littered with Malthusianism, ecological determinism, biological essentialism, and neocolonial conservationism. Left skepticism of – or perhaps more accurately, indifference to – engagement with ecological politics is certainly understandable. But we’re not talking about preserving an idealized concept of pristine, untouched nature – we’re talking about the world we choose to make, and the world we’ll have to live in.

Green dominates the environmental landscape, from the light greenwash of “sustainable lifestyles” to the dark green of deep ecologists. But environmentalism is also black lung disease in coal-mining towns and toxic brownfields in urban neighborhoods, the iridescent sheen of an oil spill and the translucent white of melting polar ice caps.

And so I cringe a bit at the term ecosocialism – it’s too earth-toned. What we need is a cyborg socialism that points not to the primacy of ecology, but to the integration of natural and social, organic and industrial, ecological and technological; that recognizes human transformations of the natural world without simply asserting domination over it.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/toward-cyborg-socialism/

This is called "Hindcasting".

"Forecasting" is not "Hindcasting".

On a technical note, I would suggest that this particular bandaid "strengthening of the Pacific trade winds" is not an answer to the question, but simply evidence of movement of latent heat.  You can't have it both ways when and how you want it.

In any case, the models have always had one or another component being tuned to adjust to past climatic behavior.  This will not result in increased accuracy.

Regional and local weather of course is a different matter.

Pacific trade winds stall global surface warming—for now

                                   

                                   


Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like ‘most warming since the 1950s is human caused’ or ‘97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming’, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading,” Spencer wrote on his blog.




http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/

Now I know a lot of people are going to just have to call the number on the dumpster and ask for it to be emptied....

Satellite data shows that Arctic sea ice was 50 per cent thicker in Autumn 2013 than it was in Autumn 2012, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

Data from the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) CryoSat satellite which is equipped to measure the thickness of sea ice using radars shows that Arctic sea ice volumes grew by 50 per cent last year. This is due to an increase in ice thickness, since sea ice extent declined by around 3 per cent.

In a statement issued on 5 February, the NSIDC said: “Preliminary measurements from the CryoSat show that the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012. In October 2013, CryoSat measured approximately 9,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 2,200 cubic miles) of sea ice compared to 6,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 1,400 cubic miles) in October 2012.”

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/latest-data-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html

 

The prohibition and attempted eradication of drugs can be a nightmare for the climate and environment. Particularly in Latin America, the fight against drug production has led to deforestation, widespread contamination with toxic chemicals, and contributed to a warming climate.

Part of the problem is when drug war policies unintentionally destroy non-drug plants that should be converting CO2 to oxygen and slowing warming. Colombia uses aerial fumigation with glyphosate herbicides, popularly known by the trademark Roundup, to kill coca crops that are used to make cocaine. But glyphosate doesn’t just kill coca. It’s designed to kill any plants it comes into contact with. And since planes have sprayed 1.6 million hectares with clouds of the herbicide between 1996 and 2012 — in the world’s second-most biodiverse country — the amount of unintended plant destruction is huge due to imprecision and human error. The Colombian government received 6,500 public complaints in 2002 alone for destroyed food crops, environmental damage, and harm to human health.

Fumigation is only the beginning of the deforestation. As drug producers are driven from their growing sites by eradication efforts, they go deeper into remote forests and national parks. Drug cultivators abandon land that’s been clear-cut and often poisoned by herbicides to cut down new forests, and they don’t just clear land for coca. The cultivators also need clear land to grow food, and to build roads, houses, and even airstrips. Without access to safe disposal or any regulation to require it, drug manufacturers dump toxic chemical byproducts wherever they can, polluting the land and water.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/05/3244421/drug-war-climate-change/

It’s the ultimate in going green. An environmental science professor is making a 33-square-foot dumpster his new home for the next year.

His name is Dr. Jeff Wilson, but since embarking on this journey, he’s now going by Professor Dumpster.

He teaches at Huston-Tillotson University in Austin, Texas, and received his Ph.D. from Harvard.

The goal is to embrace energy efficiency, and to prove that it is possible to live on a smaller scale — a much smaller scale.

This whole project revolves around using one percent of what an average American uses: one percent of the water, energy and waste.

“We really needed some sort of excitement around science, sustainability and technology,” says Wilson.

He says the idea came to him over two years ago. Since then he’s been recruiting a world-class team of professors, scientists and environmentalists to make his idea a reality.

“My hypothesis is that my life will be better,” Wilson says. “I’ll be fulfilling a richer life by living a smaller life.”


Dr. Jeff Wilson checks out his new 33 square foot dumpster home. (Credit: @profdumpster/Instagram)


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/professor-goes-green-hell-live-in-dumpster-for-a-year/

I'm starting to think that the "ban" applied only to two posters in this thread. 

If some group is ascribed to "implicitly endorse but focus on impacts (the 322)", why is it useful in any sense to try to torture the language to try to shoehorn them into a category that is described by different language ("pro consensus")  ?

I don't get it.

If you have to do this kind of thing to get to a "pro consensus" status,  that does not say much about the consensus builders....like they scrapping the bottom of barrels....

On the heels of the Senate’s passage of a long-awaited farm bill, the Obama administration is to announce on Wednesday the creation of seven regional “climate hubs” aimed at helping farmers and rural communities respond to the risks of climate change, including drought, invasive pests, fires and floods.

White House officials describe the move as one of several executive actions that President Obama will take on climate change without action from Congress.

In substance, the creation of the climate hubs is a limited step, but it is part of a broader campaign by the administration to advance climate policy wherever possible with executive authority. The action is also part of a push to build political support for the administration’s more divisive moves on climate change – in particular, the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations on coal-fired power plants.

Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture and a former Iowa governor, is to announce the creation of the climate hubs at a White House briefing.

“For generations, America’s farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have innovated and adapted to challenges,” Mr. Vilsack is to say, according to prepared remarks. “Today, they face a new and more complex threat in the form of a changing and shifting climate, which impacts both our nation’s forests and our farmers’ bottom lines.”

The hubs will be located in Ames, Iowa; Durham, N.H.; Raleigh, N.C.; Fort Collins, Colo.; El Reno, Okla.; Corvallis, Ore.; Las Cruces, N.M.; and Davis, Calif.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/next-phase-of-obamas-executive-push-climate-hubs.html?_r=1

Let's assume that the numbers in the piechart are correct.
Leave aside everyone who makes no statement either way.
Now add the numbers:
Contra consensus:
44 natural factors
34 reject or doubt consensus

Pro consensus:
13 Explicit endorse ...
322 Implicit endorse ...

That's 19% contra and 81% pro consensus