Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 214. (Read 636458 times)

In reading your post and reviewing my assertion, I think my comment was on very solid ground.  Here it is again:

What you are trying to do is construct a sort of meta-conclusion based on summaries and averages and interpretations of thousands of pieces of work.  But it's a strawman argument you presented, and that is a well understood logical fallacy.

Let's say the article in question concerns distribution pattern of ancient whale bones in the ocean between the N American continent and Greenland.  This has a rather interesting relation to climate change.

However, saying that the arthor did or did not reject climate change being caused by man and trying to draw conclusions from that is ridiculous.  It was an article on whale bone distribution patterns, and that only, and that is all that scientist knows about and is capable of commenting on.  In a scientific sense.

You make two other comments, bolded above, which are also completely inappropriate in the world of scientific inquiry.  Argument ad popularum.

Now I am through with your argument.  Let us take a brief look at Cook's.  A quick google search shows that others have discredited his method and his conclusions.

Shollenberger goes on:

If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:

Reject AGW 0.7% (78)

Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.  This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.

Now let's move to something that's not a strawman.  Climate models.  Most of the climate alarmism is rooted in forcasts from these models.

Moreover, as Bojanowski notes, scientific skepticism is even far more widespread when it comes to the reliability of the computer models that are being used to predict climate change. “Only 10% said climate models are ‘sufficiently accurate’ and only 15% said that ‘climatic processes are understood enough’ to allow climate to be calculated,” Bojanowski reported.

REF

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15457-global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books

http://beta.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e08-two-days-before-the-day-after-tomorrow

A Global Warming State is Emergency is declared in South Park as the world's largest beaver dam breaks and floods the adjacent town of Beaverton.

No, sorry, it would be a fallacy only if the articles were at most tangentially related to climate change, which is not the case, or if anthropogenic climate change wasn't already the consensus view among scientists, which it is.

This was part of a study which looked at about 16,000 peer reviewed articles that explicitly deal with climate change, and found that less than 30 either deny human activity is the cause for climate change or offer other explanations for the observations. Further, those 30 were barely cited by other articles, which leads to the next point: there no longer is a debate among scientists about whether or not anthropogenic climate change is happening; it is taken for granted and the majority of the remaining articles either explicitly or implicitly endorse the consensus opinion.

To further prove this point, a similar study went one step further and asked the authors of the papers themselves to rate the paper's position on anthropogenic climate change. About 65% stated the paper took a position on this issue, with over 97% endorsing the consensus view.

I should probably also point this out:

For anyone interested in reading more about the studies I mentioned, look up James Lawrence Powell, and James Cook.
Also, http://www.skepticalscience.com is a pretty decent site, with a lot of information about climate science myths, such as those often used here.

I have read many, many scientific articles.  Let's say tens of thousands.

As far as the area that you have mentioned, and the conclusion you have asserted, there are giant problems.

Scientific articles, of peer reviewed style, posit a narrowly defined hypothesis and then test and measure results against that.

What you are trying to do is construct a sort of meta-conclusion based on summaries and averages and interpretations of thousands of pieces of work.  But it's a strawman argument you presented, and that is a well understood logical fallacy.

I could as well say "out of 16,000 peer reviewed articles....less than 30 reject the sun as influencing climate".

It would be equally without meaning.

Actually, yes.   Objectively.  Measured.

Huh? LOL!

Yeah, but this isn't Soviet Russia and Lysenko had a lot more scientists disagreeing with him, despite the state propaganda machine.

Out of about 16,000 peer reviewed articles relating to climate change, dating from 1991 to 2013, less than 30 reject human activity as the cause for global climate change. And as far as coverage of this issue goes, at least in American mainstream media like ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, they spent a grand total of about 2 hours reporting it last year; that is, 2 hours in a whole year... and the coverage is pretty bad to begin with.

.....Mannism

You heard it here.

First.

Lysenkoism


Lysenkoism (Russian: Лысе́нковщина), or Lysenko-Michurinism was the centralized political control exercised over genetics and agriculture by Trofim Lysenko and his followers. Lysenko was the director of the Soviet Union's Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Lysenkoism began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964.
Lysenkoism was built on theories of the heritability of acquired characteristics that Lysenko named "Michurinism".[1] These theories depart from accepted evolutionary theory and Mendelian inheritance.
Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.[2]

[...]
In 1928, Trofim Lysenko, a previously unknown agronomist, claimed to have developed an agricultural technique, termed vernalization, which tripled or quadrupled crop yield by exposing wheat seed to high humidity and low temperature. While cold and moisture exposure are a normal part of the life cycle of fall-seeded winter cereals, the vernalization technique claimed to increase yields by increasing the intensity of exposure, in some cases planting soaked seeds directly into the snow cover of frozen fields. In reality, the technique was neither new (it had been known since 1854, and was extensively studied during the previous twenty years), nor did it produce the yields he promised, although some increase in production did occur.

[...]
Isaak Izrailevich Prezent, a main Lysenko theorist, presented Lysenko in Soviet mass-media as a genius who had developed a new, revolutionary agricultural technique. In this period, Soviet propaganda often focused on inspirational stories of peasants who, through their own canny ability and intelligence, came up with solutions to practical problems. Lysenko's widespread popularity provided him a platform to denounce theoretical genetics and to promote his own agricultural practices. He was, in turn, supported by the Soviet propaganda machine, which overstated his successes and omitted mention of his failures. This was accompanied by fake experimental data supporting Lysenkoism from scientists seeking favor and the destruction of counter-evidence to Lysenko's theories. Instead of performing controlled experiments, Lysenko claimed that vernalization increased wheat yields by 15%, solely based upon questionnaires taken of farmers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

---------------------------------------------
I learn everyday.

I thought I was the only one who knew that word I've never once heard it said since the first time which is when I learned about it.

Lysenko.

....humanity is indeed turning the planet into a paradise, where people live far longer and with higher quality of life than ever before in history.  Based on these facts, it is not absurd to think that the changing of the planet into a paradise has a very strong human component....

The EU's reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking -- jeopardizing Germany's touted energy revolution in the process.



The climate between Brussels and Berlin is polluted, something European Commission officials attribute, among other things, to the "reckless" way German Chancellor Angela Merkel blocked stricter exhaust emissions during her re-election campaign to placate domestic automotive manufacturers like Daimler and BMW. This kind of blatant self-interest, officials complained at the time, is poisoning the climate.

But now it seems that the climate is no longer of much importance to the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, either. Commission sources have long been hinting that the body intends to move away from ambitious climate protection goals. On Tuesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported as much.
At the request of Commission President José Manuel Barroso, EU member states are no longer to receive specific guidelines for the development ofrenewable energy. The stated aim of increasing the share of green energy across the EU to up to 27 percent will hold. But how seriously countries tackle this project will no longer be regulated within the plan. As of 2020 at the latest -- when the current commitment to further increase the share of green energy expires -- climate protection in the EU will apparently be pursued on a voluntary basis.

Climate Leaders No More?

With such a policy, the European Union is seriously jeopardizing its global climate leadership role. Back in 2007, when Germany held the European Council presidency, the body decided on a climate and energy legislation package known as the "20-20-20" targets, to be fulfilled by the year 2020. They included:

a 20 percent reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions;
raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20 percent;
and a 20 percent improvement in the EU's energy efficiency.
All of the goals were formulated relative to 1990 levels. And the targets could very well be met. But in the future, European climate and energy policy may be limited to just a single project: reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission plans also set no new binding rules for energy efficiency.

Welcome, Frackers

In addition, the authority wants to pave the way in the EU for the controversial practice of fracking, according to the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The report says the Commission does not intend to establish strict rules for the extraction of shale gas, but only minimum health and environmental standards.

The plans will be officially presented next Wednesday ahead of an EU summit meeting in March. Observers, however, believe that a decision is unlikely to come until the summer at the earliest. But action must be taken this year: At the beginning of 2015, a climate conference will take place in Paris at which a global climate agreement is to be hashed out.

The European Parliament is unlikely to be pleased with the Commission's plans. Just at the beginning of January, a strong parliamentary majority voted to reduce carbon emissions EU-wide by 40 percent by 2030 and to raise the portion of renewables to at least 30 percent of energy consumption.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html

I am pointing out there maybe a strong possibility to push for shutting down the speech of those who do not agree with the doctrine. Does that mean I love to see all those plastic bags stuck in the tree facing my windows? Not at all.

You're probably right regarding attempts to taxing, yes. That doesn't invalidate the problem that humanity is indeed turning the planet into a toxic, lifeless shithole. Based on these facts, it is not absurd to think that climate change has a very strong human component.
That opportunists take advantage and ride this bandwagon to push for taxes, is therefore a side point.

 otoh I don't know what Exxon did, but my previous post still stands. It's far from a dogma or conspiracy to admit that oil industry, countries, and those politicians/elites you mention, shill according to their best interest. The ones you oppose arent worse than the ones you defend.

But it is not a zero-sum game. Billions are "invested" everyday in the fight for global warming and climate change. Crony capitalism and politicians who love taxing LOVE global warming. So it does matter to them to make sure by imposing a carbon tax they will reduce the temperature by 2ºC in 200 years, if you pay now to help for their reelection, for the funding of his friends' research for the next 20 years, etc, etc.

Of course the flip side is "Yes but you forget Exxon is paying for EVERY single denier's research. The dogma is settled and those poor souls can't seem to find the light, blinded by the factory smokestacks of their evil masters..."

Sorry if i did not know what your point was. I reply to an idea, not really to individuals.

You don't know what my points really are itt...

One is: why do people even try to come with apparently "high-minded" arguments to mask and hide their basic self-interest, in what often is a zero-sum game?  In my view, neither camp has much credibility, due to the conflict of interest involved. 2ºC hotter or 2ºC colder, means loss for some people and gains for others. So is reducing the dependency of oil. In the U.S., this drama  has to do with keeping the domestic oil industry and the petrodollar. In other regions, like Russia it's gas, oil, more arable land and access to Artic. In Europe, there's North winter/South summer divide, i.e. nobody wants colder winters and paralysis at North, while Southerners can't stand hotter summer and droughts. Global warming for already hot regions like Africa and Middle East is terrible, etc...

The Sun’s activity is at its lowest for 100 years, scientists have warned.

They say the conditions are eerily similar to those before the Maunder Minimum, a time in 1645 when a mini ice age hit, Freezing London’s River Thames.

Researcher believe the solar lull could cause major changes, and say there is a 20% chance it could lead to ‘major changes’ in temperatures.

‘Whatever measure you use, solar peaks are coming down,’ Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire told the BBC.

‘I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this.’

He says the phenomenon could lead to colder winters similar to those during the Maunder Minimum.

‘There were cold winters, almost a mini ice age.

‘You had a period when the River Thames froze.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html

No. I don't believe in that easy strawman. Your point is "If you do not share our view, if you do not believe in global warming made by humans EXCLUSIVELY, you are a baby polar bear killer, roasting their brain with woods from the Amazon, and you called your first born Adolf", or something....

I believe the "facts" pushed by the "warmists" to prove their point should always be scientific. Shutting down the speech of the people pointing out the flaws in their methodology is a political move. Exactly what reddit did 

Well, at least a vocal minority do seem to believe so... or that it's just another government conspiracy to tax you to death.