Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 218. (Read 636458 times)

Well, they make falsifyable claims all the time.
"Burning of fossile fuel  --> more CO2 in the air"
"More CO2 --> more heat absorption"
"Higher temperatures --> increased melting of ice"
"Higher temperatures --> more water evaporation"
and so on

Spendulus, I think you're mistaking what the word falsify means with regard to the demarcation problem of science.

If you bothered to look it up, you'd see I'm stating that AGW claims are nothing more than psuedoscience and they need to make falsifiable statements in order for us to demarcate their claims as real science or cargo cult science. That's what falsify AGW means. It doesn't mean "disprove it" it means "make a statement that you can soundly claim with NEVER happen to support your theory".

Here's one from evolution: "We will never find modern day rabbit fossils embedded in pre-Cambrian rock."

AGW alarmists have yet to come up with one single falsifiable statement regarding man's impact on carbon. I don't doubt there is science to be had here, but it is not in making alarmist calls surrounding claims of few or several degrees temperature differences over periods of time. Instead, science is making bold claims, like "If X then Y" or "If X then not Z". Alarmists are unable to make such claims, so the only thing the rest of the scientific world can do is scratch their heads and shrug because there's not a damn thing to test or verify. This is the crux of the issue. You can't refute something that's not making scientific claims, which is why AGW alarmism has perpetuated itself for so damn long. Sure, they have a consensus in their little journals, but FFS the Vatican has a consensus on the virgin Mary! That a few individuals who choose to take the title "climatologist" decide to also be alarmist doesn't tell us anything. There weren't even degree programs for climatology as a standalone degree till 2001. It seems the required credentials for being a climatologist is that you have a degree in one of the following: physics, meteorology, biology, zoology, botany, paleontology, geology, entomology, microbiology, oceanography, astronomy, math, computer science, or statistics. I can assure anyone there is far from a consensus among those degrees on AGW, though their might be a consensus among those in those degrees that also choose to call themselves climatologists. We might agree there's been warming, we might agree that man's had some sort of an impact, but we don't all agree it's universally bad, and we certainly disagree on the level of impact. There's anything but a consensus on a single statement or claim related to AGW.

Hence my argument that we should falsify AGW claims, in other words, MAKE THEM TESTABLE. Someone needs to make a claim that can be falsified according to Karl Popper's demarcation solution. Then we can test and/or observe.

I actually thought something exactly like that when you said:

"Falsify AGW"

To which I replied:

Has it occurred to you that "Falsify AGW" is the strawman?
Look at my post 2x above.  None of those issues mentioned are "AGW".  "AGW" is an unscientific hodgepodge of phenomena.
Falsify "Denier" while you are at it.

If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that none of you know about the demarcation problem of science, and really have no business debating this from either angle. Falsification is what separates science from pseudoscience, and pseudoscience is rampant in this thread.

Yes.  They are people.  They are five or six feet tall.

We are little people.  Inches if lucky.  Millimeters.

That's a story I heard before.

http://youtu.be/5eDTzV6a9F4

An Obama Science Advisor.... Listen up little people and learn!

My post was extreme sarcasm, just trolling the deniers

Has it occurred to you that "Falsify AGW" is the strawman?

Look at my post 2x above.  None of those issues mentioned are "AGW".  "AGW" is an unscientific hodgepodge of phenomena.

Falsify "Denier" while you are at it.

That's a pretty lame strawman. Falsify AGW, please.

Well cuckold me sideways!  Pat Robertson has 100% undeniable proof global warming is a hoax:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/07/pat-robertson-global-warming-is-a-scam-because-there-are-no-suvs-on-jupiter/

"Televangelist Pat Robertson pointed to the cold U.S. weather on Tuesday — and the fact that there were no “SUVs driving around in Jupiter” — to assert that global warming was a scam created by scientists".

"“It’s getting warmer in Jupiter, and they don’t have any SUVs driving around in Jupiter,” Robertson explained. “I mean, it has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. It has to do with the axis of the Sun.”


Case closed as far as I'm concerned, this dude can even cure your toothache through the TV:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/08/christian-broadcasting-network-pat-robertson-can-pray-viewers-toothaches-away-over-the-tv/

FYI

The 5th "Summary for Policymakers" of the IPCC report is available, draft form, here.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf

This is an interesting document.

Some of were labeled 'deniers' because we claimed there was a Medieval Warming Period. 

Now the IPCC admits so.

Some were labeled 'deniers' because we said there has been no statistically significant warming during the last 15 years.

Now the IPCC admits so.

Some were labeled 'deniers' because we said that climate sensitivity was lower than hystericl warmies alleged. 

Now the IPCC admits so.



And who would argue with settled science?

A controversial proposal to cool the planet artificially by injecting tiny reflective particles into the upper atmosphere which block out sunlight would cause droughts and climate chaos in the poorest countries of the world, a study has found.

One of the more serious plans to “geoengineer” the global climate would in effect create another climate catastrophe that would result in misery for millions of people, according to a computer model of the plan.

Some climate researchers have suggested that mimicking the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions with massive injections of sulphate particles into the atmosphere may be necessary in an emergency if global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels continue to rise unabated.

It is known that the sulphate particles produced by volcanoes, which are relatively quickly washed out of the atmosphere, can reduce incoming solar radiation significantly, and so cause average global temperatures to dip.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/plan-to-avert-global-warming-by-cooling-planet-artificially-could-cause-climate-chaos-9043962.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Madness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLDER6GP30c

Perfect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4ZGKI8vpcg

from the comments...

The term Jumping the Shark was coined from this yes, but it is supposed to be the instance when a TV show has peaked, and is now beginning it's decline. Family guy actually jumped the Shark a long time ago, around the time Cleveland left...

"Beginning it's decline" ring a bell?  

But, Warmies wouldn't want people to know...so the'd .... the'd hide ... hide...hide...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk

"ignoring the cold and the snow and the downward line...
Hide THE DECLINE!"

again from the comments "just because you're right doesn't mean you don't suck!"

With the amount of money invested in green energy worldwide everyday based on global warming fear, no way this meme has jumped the shark yet.

I am sorry, but this is no different than the way you hear "It's global warming that caused it!!!!"

after tornados, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, rain, snow, cold spells, fish kills, jet stream natural wobbles, polar ice increase, polar ice decrease, polar bear population increases, on and on and on...

This meme has jumped the shark.

People that want to talk about Global Warming need to just Shut the Fuck Up.

If in fact one day we actually figure that there is a bit too much co2 in the air, the job will then be to simply embed it in a slightly larger biomass.  And no I'm not talking the stupidity of 'planting trees', but engineered stuff.

In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


Forty years later, Time Magazine blames the cold polar vortex on global warming

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold

http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/time-magazine-goes-both-ways-on-the-polar-vortex/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E87raPj9m0A

It is unclear exactly why many climate change organizations are installing new executives, but it appears they are following the professional sports paradigm: When a team loses more than it wins, you can’t fire all the players, but you can fire the coach.


In the last decade the environmentalist have peddled harsh laws to install climate change strategies. However, many of these laws don’t pass, and new regulations fail to get traction. With global warming at a standstill for most of the last two decades and – much to Al Gore’s chagrin – plenty of ice still on the polar caps, more green groups are firing their CEO’s.
Next to go is Maggie Fox, president and CEO of the Al Gore-founded Climate Reality Project, who will be gone in the Spring. The group was previously called the Alliance for Climate Protection and was part of the unsuccessful environmental movement’s drive to enact cap-and-trade legislation in 2009-10.
Two other large U.S. environmental companies are giving the boot to their leaders. National Wildlife Federation President and CEO Larry Schweiger is leaving in May, and Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke is also parting ways with her group in 2014.
Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, defended the changing of the guard. "It happens in every profession," he said; "An older generation gives way to a new one. In this case, a new generation of leaders needs to step up." However, this logic doesn’t fully explain why Greenpeace USA is canning Executive Director Phil Radford who is only in his late 30s, a clear member of that younger generation.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/06/Futile-Climate-Change-Companies-Seek-New-Leadership

Yeah. Unfortunately, there's immense correlation between the AGW activist crowd and the crowd that is generally in favor of government activism.

The problem, of course, is that the political issue of AGW spans so many disciplines, most of which are too complex to understand fully. Thus, it begs for confirmation bias.

The power vacuum of democracy means the vested interests of government are always searching for problems to "fix".


An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications. - Lazarus Long

Well don't worry, it doesn't really matter if the problem is warming one day and cooling the next (e.g. the front page Time magazine issue in the 1970s hysteria about global cooling), too much rain one day and a drought the next, the government assures us they will take action.

Taking action on the source of the problems seems to be the strongest fortitude of government. For example, we have Hitler declaring lack of blonde hair and blue eyes (Aryan race versus shrewd Jews) was a source problem with the economic failure brought on by printing money out of thin air to spend on universal health care and massive make-work infrastructure projects (e.g. Autobahn) after the devastation brought on the economy by WW1 reparations and the Communist Wiemar government.

See the pattern? First adopt all planks of the Communist Manifesto, go to war to blame repeated bouts of economic failure on everyone else, and then when the State is so bankrupt it can't even sell its own bonds then (via a State funded propaganda campaign the highly educated population) install a totalitarian megalomaniac as the final desperate attempt to maintain the delusion of perfection. Then there is no one else to steal from, and the dogs eat themselves.


Seems the western world is right on track to repeat this hamster wheel.