Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 229. (Read 636443 times)

First of all, you point to a True Believer's efforts to 'explain a technical article' to lay people.  You do not point to Skakun's article or his conclusions.  I am just commenting on this as wrong, and unnecessary, and clearly biased.  You've pointed to an article that asserts "Co2 is the principal control knob governing the Earth's temperature" - not Skakun, dude.

Neither you or Anonymint has an arguable point.  He would argue that the Religious Warmer's co2/lag argument is "this time it's different", which is not impossible but a recognized logical problem.  You'd argue that "no it's been different before, too".  Neither of you has a sound basis for predictive capability based on presented or available arguments and knowledge of historical CO2 and temperature lag or lead.

Now go prove it with tree rings.  Or whale bones.  Or tree lines at altitude.  Oxygen isotope.  Sediment.  Venus.   

Yada Yada Yada...

Apologies for the faulty link posted earlier. The correct link is http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html.

Modelling?  Those are the observations over the past 30 years, not some computer model.

The ice goes down, does a dead cat bounce, and goes down some more.


"Cap and trade" schemes and "carbon taxation" are not the same thing.

Video in Flash. It will not show up from an iOS device. Check it out later if you think about it.

Nope.  What my personal beliefs are are not relevant to scientific investigation.  I'll still advocate for clear, testable hypotheses.

If the result of beliefs and opinions and politics interfered with that, I'd be opposed regardless of whether it was pro or against my personal opinions.

No video found there.

But I'll challenge Nathan Allen, the 'self proclaimed PhD chemist who is the moderator', to come to this thread and debate his beliefs either with you or I.  Don't think he'd do very well.

I mean, what is he going to say?  The planet just isn't cooperating with his Great Schemes of Warming.  Darn.  Dam that planet.  Ban it!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/reddit-bans-comments-from-global-warming-skeptics/

great video

10000% Agree. Everything you write is well known from the defenders of globalists wanting to force a universal tax while maintaining the poorest nation from developing their own resources. But this thread is a way to shine a light on how the first piece of the puzzle is placed. The article message was, again: "Look what we did! We should do the same everywhere beyond our website". That is what I am focusing on.

BUT for those who believes in Bitcoin & carbon taxing for the good of the planet, let me remind you of this:



http://www.carbonresource.com/news2.html
Carbon Resource Management has successfully registered the first carbon credits originating from a windfarm project in China at the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and executed on the CCX trading platform.

https://www.theice.com/ccx.jhtml
Chicago Climate Exchange is North America's largest and longest running greenhouse gas emission reduction program. From 2003 through 2010 CCX operated as a comprehensive cap and trade program with an offsets component. In 2011 CCX launched the Chicago Climate Exchange Offsets Registry Program to register verified emission reductions based on a comprehensive set of established protocols

Scandal: Obama, Gore, Goldman, Joyce Foundation CCX partners to fleece USA
http://www.examiner.com/article/scandal-obama-gore-goldman-joyce-foundation-ccx-partners-to-fleece-usa

(I hate media matter) but I like the first comment.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/05/03/debunking-glenn-becks-cap-and-trade-conspiracy/164147

The thing is CCX was closed in 2010, but was projected to make trillions for all the people in charge. Obama was pushing hard for green energy because he was involved with the same people he said he was against, goldman, sach, etc, in Chicago.
Ask yourself this: if I am already ultra mega rich or a president, who will be hurt more from a new tax you cannot escape from no matter where you are? If this is a tax for the good of the planet how come you can still buy carbon taxes from other non polluters while you keep polluting?

The answer is: "Ban! Ban! Ban!"

What I am saying to you is that these are not science precisely because they can't be falsified.

It is no different in that respect than religion. Is denying religion because it can't be falsified irrational? That is why we call it faith and not science. Please learn the distinction.

It is modeling masturbation.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein.

Meaning we can make models that say exactly the opposite by making different assumptions. That is why it isn't science. Science is something real that can be tested and falsified. How can we falsify that soot from some place is causing ice to increase or decrease some place else? It is only a model and can never be tested. Statistical correlation does not warrant cause and effect. That is a basic tenet of statistical theory.


Spain even taxes sunlight now. This is an actual law.

The socialism is going to tax everything that moves, until it doesn't move then they will regulate it, then they will spend money to make it move in the most inefficient way.

What is happening to world, it is insane.

Actually this is what happens when socialism (big government) peaks. It always ends horrifically. Look at the chart of the population of Rome, fell from 1.3 million to 30,000 and stayed that low for 600 years.

The socialism is trying to find something else to blame the peak and crash on. Westerners don't want to give up their $150 trillion debt bubble, so they blame it on resource scarcity.

It is so easy for me to see. Because I don't depend on that socialism. I generate my own wealth from my own ingenuity and hard work.


Unfalsifiable modeling masturbation. Religion. Irrationality. Insanity. Three Little Pigs.

Please grow up.

In other news, the Daily Junk Mail's headlines continue to misrepresent data and the actual experts are correct.

See here.  Linked as it seems SMF doesn't like animated images.

Yeah.  But what happens with theories, or pseudo theories or whatever AGW is, is that if false, they get burdened with more and more rationalizations and explanations until eventually they simply collapse of their own weight.

Politically the problem seems that there's big money in ascribing to airborne CO2 the attribute of evil, and thus instilling guilt in people from producing evil gaseous outputs, and then assessing punitive fines and taxes for this 'justifiable and urgent' crisis.

Basically it's an attempt of governments to assert ownership of the air envelope of the entire world.

No.  I've tried to describe actual working of a scientific hypothesis. 

That has zero to do with whether I agree with you or there is science one way or the other.

My point was that the investigation of properly formulated hypotheses should be something that people of divergent views can agree is a good thing.

The fact there is not a single hypothesis underlying the global warming (myth, concept, religion, whatever you want to call it) does not mean that the key assertions made are false.  This leads into a logical fallacy known as being challenged to refute an irrefutable hypothesis.  EG, "prove there isn't a God".

Good luck with that.  Consider the mountain, Kilimanjaro that Gore used in his sick movie - he showed it's loss of snow cover, and attributed it to CO2 increases.  Well, he was dead wrong - research later showed it conclusively to be caused by land use changes.

A reasonable hypothesis here would have been "loss of snow can be attributed to regional or local land use changes."   If that could not be shown in whole or part, then the actual air itself or incoming solar would be possible causes. 

My issue is that banning speech whether on private or public, whether by subtle forces or overt rule, would destroy the ability of science to operate as above described.  And it has done that.

So then STFU about man-made climate change. You have no science to support that question one way or the other. Impossible. You've agreed with me, can't you see that?


Fuck no we can't agree. We can build a model and test the model, but we don't fucking know if the model is even capturing all the variables.

This ain't science. Science is where you can change a variable and it stops happening. It you do that enough times, you've proved something.

So we can go fucking the world with a carbon tax and then later find out there is no correlation. Fabulous. Fuck my world, just so you can get your grant money. What happened the Ice Age scare from front page of Time magazine in the 1970s? You bribed fucks.

Any way, I am tired of talking, I am going to defeat you with anonymity.


It is a complete waste of time topic in the first place.


Broken link and yeah I've seen the propaganda. More nonsense for fools like you to fuck our world with.

Why am I pissed off? Because you are declaring war on humanity by aiding and abetting the globalists and their carbon tax fraud. YOU are an existential threat to mankind. Cancers should be extricated and destroyed.


Politeness was double-speak in 1984.

From a scientist in email.

Au contraire. Read this, for example. CO2 can be either a primary forcing or a feedback factor. In the former case, it will lead temperature; in the latter case, it will sometimes trail. I am surprised you do not know this.

Also, the comment stream you linked does not, IMHO, make the case you believe it does, as far as I can see.

I decided a long time ago to act in forum the way I talk in everyday's life. I would get abused but never abuse back or censor, and keep it cool.

I realized true believers never need a hammer to nail their ideas to others, never use force. Obvious is obvious. Complicated solutions or explanations last the length of some scientist's grant or their natural life then get forgotten by history.

I'm familiar with the ice core studies.  I've read them.  Yes, Al Gore did a lot of lying, starting with his 1988 Senate hearings, where he and a friend vandalized the air conditioners so that it was very hot during those hearings on 'global warming'.  August, I think it was...

Here's one for you.   There is no "scientific hypothesis" of man made global warming.  There are a group of observations, predictions and premises.  There may be formulated dozens of area-specific scientific hypotheses, each of which can be tested.  But these are area, region or otherwise narrowly focused of necessity, otherwise they cannot be tested.

Here is a sample hypothesis.

Arctic ice melt is more influenced by soot accumulation from Asia than from increases in CO2.

Whatever you think about the matter, we could all likely agree that was a testable hypothesis....

Back up to the OP:  I really suspect that this post would not be allowed under the rules that Reddit now has, although to me it seems totally straightforward as a question...

Not good.

Read all the 27 comments at the provided link. You can't just be lazy to read only what I commented here. I can't copy this entire linked page of comments into this thread.

There is no science of man-made global warming. Period. The comments at the linked thread are irrefutable.

Never in millions of years of cycles has temperature risen after CO2 does. Temperate always rises at least 600 years before C02 does. So C02 can't be the cause. Duh!

Al Gore lied. He didn't show his chart zoomed in.

I was waiting for a complete retard like you to stick your neck out so I can obliterate your ignorance with irrefutable facts.

Of course you are too stoopid to understand the facts presented below.

Both sides of this debate are too fear driven.

Anthropogenists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1"

Denialists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1"


Not very tempted by either of those arguments to be honest. I've looked at the scientific evidence from both camps, and tried to trace the source of the funding. It's not a very clear picture, on balance.


The non-partisan facts appear to be:

Carbon based energy definitely does pollute the atmosphere. But not necessarily with CO² and other greenhouse gases. Non-carbon based energy is more sustainable, and we will eventually have to make an economic decision to stop using carbon fairly soon anyway. Non-carbon based energy sources carry either less or no pollutants. Once well/fully developed, there is no way to carbon tax non-sources of CO² emissions.

Short term nuclear is the best option, but heavy isotopic nuclear fuel is not so great. There are alternative nuclear fuels though, such as thorium, which is being developed heavily by India (who have very large natural deposits). A prototype for an early design of commercial thorium power plant is said to be coming online in India next year.

As far as vehicles go, it looks like the pipe dream has actually arrived. Toyota, along with BMW, Honda and Hyundai, have commercial hydrogen fuel cell vehicles ready for 2015-2016. Looks like the issue with using expensive platinum hydrolysis catalysts has been solved (although the reports I've read make no mention of how). The all electric vehicle is still a little range bound and battery hampered, but some kind of supercapacitor style battery technology, be it graphene or otherwise based, should be available within a decade or two. I think the hydrogen models will be just fine before that problem is dealt with, we will proabably see both technologies featuring in vehicles of the 2020's (depending on the space/weight/energy density merits as per the type of vehicle).



So it's all too much FUD and not enough realism. I think this decade is set to be an all-time FUD fest. If you choose neo-luddism, you will probably die of stress related illnesses before either tax tyranny on imperceptible swings in climatic conditions, or any actual freak hurricane/typhoon/tsunami/desertification/ice age do. The politics driving both FUD camps is likely pretty complex in reality, transcending both is the only worthwhile route.