Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 226. (Read 636458 times)

So what you are telling me....

Is that there are a lot of sick people haters jumping on the global warming bandwagon?

Well those people would go truly nuts if the planet didn't cooperate and decided to chill out instead.

Wait....those people are going truly nuts...

#1) The March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief….

“What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”

#2) Microsoft’s Bill Gates….

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

#3) Barack Obama’s top science advisor, John P. Holdren….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

#4) George W. Bush’s science advisor Paul Ehrlich….

“Each person we add now disproportionately impacts on the environment and life-support systems of the planet.”

#5) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg….

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

#6) A United Nations Population Fund report entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate”….

“No human is genuinely ‘carbon neutral,’ especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation.”

#7) David Rockefeller….

“The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

#8) Jacques Cousteau….

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

#9) CNN Founder Ted Turner….

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

#10) Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder….

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

#11) Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh….

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

#12) David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club….

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

#13) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger….

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

#14) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12….

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

#15) Princeton philosopher Peter Singer….

“So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!”

#16) Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs….

“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it….”

#17) Mikhail Gorbachev….

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

#18) John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London….

“The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.”

#19) Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka….

“This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.”

#20) U.S. Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton….

“This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way.  The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add.”

#21) Clinton adviser Nina Fedoroff….

“We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”

#22) The first of the “new 10 commandments” on the Georgia Guidestones….

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/yes-they-really-do-want-to-reduce-the-population-22-shocking-population-control-quotes-from-the-global-elite-that-will-make-you-want-to-lose-your-lunch

Global warming and evolution both share one thing in common= they arent science they are theories
www.drdino.com

and the irony here is that the ones who are qualified have HUGE incentive to be biased. moral of the story, don't appeal to any authority.

I think I'm going to go die now.


I think we should be ruled by these people.

The professor who proposed the death penalty for climate change denial is a musicologist. He is a scientist, so what he must say is right, right? All scientists are qualified in all fields of science because they are scientists. The only people who are more qualified than scientists and in fact all-knowing about everything are the politicians.

That's a deeply flawed statement.  Not every scientist is qualified to comment on global warming - only scientists who actually specialize in this field.  The beliefs of other scientists carry just as much weight as those of the general public.

In the same way, someone who is an expert in climate science may not be an expert in public policy making.

Good thoughts, and you get extra credit for the correct use of "effect" with an e as a verb.

Whenever I see things like this written I respond with:


Consensus doesn't answer the question of falsifiability of the debate. Right now the global warming activist community simply presumes there is a problem with little detail as to what exactly will be affected and how we can record that impact as being directly contributed to by man.

Natural selection posited the theory that species were constantly changing, and that animals might have common ancestors. But it wasn't till Evolution was solidified that we had a way to falsify what had come from Natural Selection.

As Karl Popper has stated, the strength of a scientific theory isn't in what it predicts might happen but in what it can confirm will NOT happen. We have found no evidence of modern day rabbits in pre-Cambrian rock, therefore, our Evolutionary assessments seem to confirm Natural Selection is possible.

Global Warming needs it's Evolution theory. It needs something that can turn it from "this COULD happen" into "this CANNOT happen", and until it does, we have to assume it is presently straddling the line of pseudo-science, because right now nothing differentiates it from other forms of pseudo-science, or, as I mentioned with the quote about bishops believing in the virgin birth above, even a religion.

Most climate activists posit 7 things.

A) Climate change is happening
B) Climate is being effected by humans
C) The effect of humans on the climate is significant
D) Climate change is a problem
E) The problem can be corrected
F) The benefits of taking actions to correct it outweigh the costs of those actions
G) The force of the state should be utilized as part of the solution.

The leap to b is certainly true. The leap to C is probably a 50/50 in my mind. By the time you get down to D there is prob a 75% chance that you have made a mistake (there is more land mass trapped up in arctic deserts than equatorial deserts on planet earth so an increase in temperature would probably cause more presently uninhabitable land to become inhabitable than habitable land to become uninhabitable). Of course E is even less likely. By the time you get all the way to G the chances that you have not made an unwarranted leap are astronomically slim.

See bolded above.
I am curious, though.  What percentages CO2 were you using?  Were you able to replicate the logrhythmic decrease of the effect of increasing CO2, if so, at what levels?  Seems like there would be quite a few interesting variations to the 'simple experiment'.  Ever modify relative humidity to see effect?

One problem is that if the entire atmosphere did heat up, the gas envelope would expand, with resulting higher surface area for heat loss to space.

You  global warming people dont work on science...someone a few posts back stated millions of years of ice core ring evidence...and there is no such thing.The idea that CO2 is increasing temperatures sounds good but again there is no scientific evidence to support this just theories. Theories similar to the big bang and all the other lies and false theories made to support the evolution religion...in fact its the same elite luciferean/satanic forces that created the evolution lie and perpetuated it across the populations in all countries where their central banks control the govts.
The heat that is supposedly trapped in the atmosphere is radiated out into the cold of space every 12 hours when the earth is hidden from the sun. Heat is not accumulating....that is science

I have done this experiment for many years. And although a simple model, it is a very accurate one. Add C02 to the atmosphere and the temp will rise. What branch of physics says otherwise?

Come on, now.  That's a convenient explanation rendered condescendingly.  But accurate, it is not.

Add some clouds to the fish tank, and watch the temperature not go up, maybe go down, etc.

Add a lot of hot air from religious Warmers, that'd make the fish tank temperature go up.  Put some hungry fish in the tank, temperature would go back down.

Anyway, where are you going to measure the global fish tank temperature?  Basic physics - there is no such thing.  Total heat capacity, yes.  Like a battery.  But that is not temperature, is it?

You been proved wrong.  That was quick.

It's simple really. Shine a light on a closed fish tank filled with air. Now put a little CO2 in the tank and watch the temp go up. It's 2nd.grade physics. You have to be willfully ignorant to not understand. 

Not only that but the weak solar flux in the last 15 years or so, and the lack of sunspots, has solar scientists publishing warnings that we may have a 'little ice age coming'.  The point to the one in the 17th century, as the only other time we know of which is similar.

That's huge, even if admittedly a possibility, since the Earth's population is so much higher today.

So does this make me a believer in climate change?

What if there was an effect from the man's co2 and it stopped the ice age?

That somehow also falls within the definition of "Denier".

Go figure.

There are two things being postulated:

A. Climate change is happening

B. Climate change is caused by humans

People who question B. but accept A. still get brushed as "climate change deniers".

There has been climate change even before humans existed. Yet humans and client change are automatically linked together, the first causes the last. No nuances are possible.

I see the same trick in other areas. People who oppose the European Union are "against Europe". So you're against a whole continent if you oppose the EU.

Agreed in principle, but not in relative culpability and sampling confidence interval.

Millions of years of ice core data showing that temperature rises then CO2 lags by up to 600 - 1000 years is a correlation. Whether temperature causes C02 to rise is not proven by that correlation. However, it certainly rules out that C02 rises have caused temperature to rise.

And there is a theory that makes a great amount of sense because it is probably the only possibility, which is that as temperature rises the oceans warm and then the oceans release the C02 in orders-of-magnitude more quantity than humans ever could.

And the temperature rises correlate with sunspot activity, so it is also quite reasonable to make the theory that the sun is what modulates temperature on Earth.

Duh! Without the sun, we'd be frozen.

That is not proof. But I don't need to prove anything. They are the ones (and I will exaggerate slightly to make the dramatic point of where socialism can lead to with eugenics, a la Hitler, fall of Rome, Stalin, China, etc) who want to tax the fuck out of breathing (we exhale C02), due to some non-proof.

The Carbon Cycle is life on earth. These lunatics want to tax and destroy life.

I wouldn't complain once we have anonymous cryptocurrencies if bounties are offered for their heads. They should be more careful about how this socialism is going to go down. They feel too safe. They are a cancer and a threat to the survival of the human species. Note I am not making any personal threat, nor am I inciting or advising any one to. Just trying to wake them up to the reality that their lunatic actions have a cost, and they better be more careful about banning the truth and running roughshod over the human species. Nature attacks back.