Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 223. (Read 636458 times)

Let me get this straight.

They are saying something like...

We came down here to see the ice before it's all gone, but we didn't bother to check the trends and the drunk captain needed to keep this junky boat running, so he ran us down to the damn coldest place on the planet, and ... uhh....there was all this ice down here...and like, so...we got stuck in it.  BUT HEY THE PLANET'S WARMING, JUST TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT...

You know what?  I'll believe some of those radical types when they go down there and don't ask for emergency assistance, just take enough food for a couple years until it's warm.

Note:  In a sense, you can't blame these people.  Very few people can even imagine conditions in Antarctica, it is so far beyond anything they have seen or read of.  Totally dry air, unbelievably cold, kadiabatic winds average 100 mph rushing inland, the entire continent far bigger than the US and less than a dozen climate measuring stations,  only two native living species and those are lichens or moss or something like that.

North Pole:  Nice.  (HAHHAHAHA!)
South Pole:  Totally bad ass.  Like Mars or something.


From the comments...

Russian sea captain Dimitri Zinchenko has been steering ships through the pack ice of Antarctica for three decades, “I see just more and more ice, not less ice.”

So, on one hand you have someone with 30 years of first hand observation and experience in the environment verses a group of climate scientists such as Michael “Hide the decline” Mann with computer models and cooked data . Who are you going to believe?

SO...back to the OP....

Does this all get banned from Reddit?  Do only comments that make snarky fun of these fools going to the South Pole get banned?  I want to make snarky fun of them because it's fun.

There is no way you are serious... how on earth could the koch broters impose a fine on anyone? Wouldn't you just say no?

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/scientists-trapped-in-record-sea-ice-announce-that-it-is-disappearing/

OPEC want you to believe otherwise. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm to 420 ppm in just 100 years. Don't you think this will have some effect on our lives?

Tesla electric cars have the equivalent of 400 horsepower!

The best application for electric vehicle technology today is for motorcycles due to the cost. People can make them on their own, as strong and as (not an official word) off-roady as needed.


Biomass and ethanol can be carbon neutral. The reason is simply this. A plant that wasn't buried underground and fossilized uses carbon from the atmosphere to form itself. So basically each year, your crop sucks in the same amount of carbon as your vehicle puts out.

Digging for fossil fuels is quite different.


A change in the climate that is imperceptible to humans can destroy a lot of resources. Think about places that depend on water from glaciers. If the temperature rises just a little bit and the glaciers melt and go into the sea they may have to import water.

When I was still living in Greece we saw a huge percentage of forests burning (along with quite a few people too). This may be a sign that the globe is (on average) ever so slightly increasing in temperature.

Here is a link about the bushfires in australia: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/25/climate-council-clear-link-bushfires

Here is a video I'm watching now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck


I guess the reason I'm not ultra concerned about global warming is that the country in which I come from (Greece) doesn't have that much to lose. While having for its size a gigantic coastline, the elevations are such that even if you melt the entire world's ice the map barely changes.

Now I live in Florida. The ice melting (if it happens) is a problem for the next generations. Now we just have to deal with a little more unpredictable weather and a bunch of forrest fires.


Global warming also makes more rain and snow in places that already had those. I wonder if the rainfall increase will be significant enough. We (humanity) could totally milk this effect and have more hydroelectric energy around. (At least until something better comes along).

About the methanol thing, is it a way of efficiently converting natural gas to something that can be used in normal cars? If that's possible I'm interested.

I do.  And although warmers have presented arguments concerning the negative results of 3-6C which are plausible (Not saying here that 3-6C is plausible consequence of man's activities, just noting that it would be disasterous for many things) , arguing that net global results of a 0.6C temperature increase are negative or severely and dramatically negative doesn't fly.  Quite on the contrary, I would imagine.

Regarding your rather interesting argument about the merits of getting off the grid.

If you had a farm up a mountain and drove an all electric car, you wouldn't need to pay all the gasoline taxes nor would you need to pay for electricity (which is subsidized by the government in many cases).

You could in-fact right now, buy all the equipment needed to do what I just described. No longer need for external electricity. You can even make carbon-neutral fuels such as an oxygen-hydrogen mixture through electrolysis or make a little bit of ethanol (also for drinking).

Bolded part above:  Electric car might not do too well going up that mountain.  Prius even has trouble with long uphill runs.

I'd love to get off the grid.  What you argue, though is that I could trade cash for equipment that would enable me to do so.  Then I'd have to maintain that equipment and feed it.  Ethanol production takes a lot of energy inputs; brown gas takes a lot of energy inputs.  Both of these scale down poorly, meaning a refinery is the smart way to produce hydrogen, or ethanol.  For a single person to get off the grid, or a small community, my opinion is the way to do it would be to own and operate a couple of natural gas wellheads.  Some 3500 psi tanks and lines, and cars run nicely on natural gas.

To further illustrate this point:  I could do a lot with methanol, by using a process which runs hot steam over natural gas, stripping H+ and embedding the OH on the C, leaving methanol, and thus have a storable energy instead of having to deal with the 3500 psi of natural gas.  But I could also make the methanol from 'renewables', meaning, various forms of cellulose, wood, trash, and so forth.  Problem is, it is way cheaper and easier to do it from natural gas, so that's the way I would do it.

but if someone else wants to make the fuel from biomass, all power to them!  (just don't preach about being carbon neutral while driving your gashog car down the road, lol...)

Let me guess. You don't live near the coast.

+0.6=10 times more destruction?

Wow! We should do something about this. How can we stop +0.6? Would +0.2 OK?

Except for D. The results of sustainable energy give more power to the individual rather the ones controlling the grid.

If you had a farm up a mountain and drove an all electric car, you wouldn't need to pay all the gasoline taxes nor would you need to pay for electricity (which is subsidized by the government in many cases).

You could in-fact right now, buy all the equipment needed to do what I just described. No longer need for external electricity. You can even make carbon-neutral fuels such as an oxygen-hydrogen mixture through electrolysis or make a little bit of ethanol (also for drinking).

A life that is less reliant on carbon, is better for the individual. The extent to which climate change will affect us is very difficult to determine. People in Australia now suffer from more bush fires than ever.

The difference in temperature is nearly imperceptible to us humans but it does affect the weather and the ecosystems a lot more.

If it was 0.6c warmer today most people wouldn't care that much. But that slightly warmer climate can make forest fires 10 times more common and destructive. I'm sure that in a few decades we will have developed better models and systems for measuring climate change.

Unfortunately a proof will not be possible. Ever.
In science you can only disprove theories, not prove them.

Of course the global warming is caused by the hot spaghetti of the Spaghetti Monster.

Well, curiously, it is not a proof but reductionist logic.  Like this.

blah-blah-blah "so you see the temperatures have been warming because we link together old tree ring data and thermometers and stuff"
blah-blah-blah "So you see solar irradiance can't account for the warming"
blah-blah-blah "so you see water moisture can't account for the warming"
blah-blah-blah "so you see pollution can't account for the warming"

And all that leaves, ladies and gentlemen....is carbon dioxide!!!!

This method of reasoning is to say the least, highly suspect.  It attempts to form a 'irrefutable hypothesis'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHP9Rh-ooh0


Global warming is happening. I don't know who has been feeding you all of the conspiracy theories to believe otherwise.


Just look for the warmest (globally, on average) years on record and you will find the proof there. In the hard, irrefutable data.

10 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)
Year   Global[66]   Land[67]   Ocean[68]
2010   0.6590   1.0748   0.5027
2005   0.6523   1.0505   0.5007
1998   0.6325   0.9351   0.5160
2003   0.6219   0.8859   0.5207
2002   0.6130   0.9351   0.4902
2006   0.5978   0.9091   0.4792
2009   0.5957   0.8621   0.4953
2007   0.5914   1.0886   0.3900
2004   0.5779   0.8132   0.4885
2012   0.5728   0.8968   0.4509


It is going to be a problem. Sure we don't know exactly what we're going to face. But we have to lower carbon dioxide emissions.

I hate the carbon tax idea. It cannot be applied to the world today.

There are many interests that want to keep us from doing things that make sense and allow for more freedom. For example the Koch brothers (the ultra-rich horrible people) try to impose fines to people with solar panels and disallow them to sell their energy back to the grid (a positive action for all of us).

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3SDcOZLksk (not an academic source)



Just look at all the conspiracy theories on this thread and you will realize why Reddit took this particular action. Not everyone has the time to keep reading the same comments from a bunch of people who have believed the propaganda of the two-faced oil-producing profiteering companies that are raping this earth.

On one side they give money to anti-climate change think-tanks and on the other they give way less money to do climate research and alternative technology research. It is all bullshit.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcNV4qiuKU4 (not an academic source)


There are new exciting technologies that put more power back to us. And people should be working to improve them. We should also cut excesses that further damage the earth's climate. It may just save the future generations from a lot of problems.

An Antarctic rescue mission has suffered a setback after a Chinese icebreaker had to abandon its bid to free a ship stranded in sea ice.

A group of Australian scientists, explorers and tourists has been stuck on the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy since Christmas Day.

The ship, with 74 people on board, sent a distress call after becoming trapped in heavy sea ice, which has continued to expand around it over the past three days near Antarctica.

Three ice-breaking ships were sent to free the stranded vessel, located more than 1500 nautical miles south of Hobart.

China’s Snow Dragon icebreaker was the first to arrive and rammed through much of the sea ice until it came within six-and-a-half nautical miles of the stranded vessel.

But in a setback to the rescue mission, the icebreaker had to turn back on Saturday after it, too, encountered heavy sea ice that threatened the ship’s own safety.

“It can’t break through any further,” said Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) spokeswoman Andrea Hayward-Maher.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/12/28/09/11/rescue-setback-for-ice-stranded-ship

Is any research looking into the PROOF of global warming made by humans pushed by politic/faith and not Science?

I am curious, those who you refer to as 'taking C and D for granted'.

Are those people who are basically predisposed to 'big government solutions' pretty much no matter what the issue or problem was?

It would be more indicative of sound scientific thinking, if for example, you had libertarian scientists asserting C and D, than liberal progressives.

I would add

C. Climate change is going to have more bad consequences than good ones

D. The best method for solving the problem is "power to the state!"

It is simply not enough to be confident about A, relatively confident about B, then assume that anybody who questions C and D are "anti-science". I work in science and know many in various fields who take C and D for granted.

I agree, and I qualified my comment previously made to account for the issues in this case.  (From my prior post:  Note, this is a complicated story and there may be several sides to it.  But I think we're cool on saying this guy helped develop the Polar Bears Dying myth, and the Believers Protect Their Own.)

From the source:

....They said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of the bears floating dead and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances. They said their findings suggested drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the regression of pack ice or periods of longer open water continues. The observations helped make the polar bear a symbol for the climate change movement.

Following the investigation, BOEM ultimately found no evidence of scientific misconduct. But Monnett was reprimanded for improper release of emails that were later used by an appeals court to strike down an Arctic oil and gas exploration plan approved by BOEM.

But what we are looking at here is the purposeful creation and propagation of a myth - the polar bears/global warming myth - and we're looking at the original source of that myth.

Granted, big money interests took it up and ran with it.  And everyone who protested was just told to STFU.

Because the science was settled, right?

Wrong.

And relating this back to the OP....Someone that had argued against the Polar Bear Myth would have been branded a Denier, and banned from Reddit.  Right?

Right.

Accusations do not constitute proof of malfeasance. In fact, the link you provided contains the following sentence:


Sometimes one must read past the headlines.