Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 25. (Read 636443 times)

Quote me on where I said bitcoin being the work of some japanese dude?  Did you just post on a thread showing your level of stupid?  demons,lol.  Left wing nutcases is what they were, not demons.  They tried to take over the world and to do that, you must kill millions.  Now go back to your Alex Jones with your tinfoil hats.

I think you probably are, but I'm not certain of this.

Not sure what you're getting at bringing religion into the conversation. Are you comparing today's climate change skeptics to the first scientists/philosophers that were killed for speaking their minds about science which was then seen as blasphemy? If I have you wrong which I think I do please correct me.

One of the features of the new-age religion being pumped is that it tries to elevate 'scientists' to a priest class who cannot be questioned by mere mortals.  I call them 'scientpriests.'

There is a bumpy patch here in that some scientists don't necessarily cop to the official dogma at all times.  It's a particularly large problem for scientists who have tenure, or Nobel prizes, or are independently wealthy.  Or are simply fans of the scientific method in general and have some ethical principles.  They have the basic foundation to become heretics, and a fraction of these will not do so quietly and privately.  This is why the new-age religion needs to criminalize 'climate skepticism'

In point of actual fact, about 50% of mortals have the basic capability to understand scientific principles well enough to see right through the fraud, and a small fraction of these peeps will do just that.  Many others will make the right decisions about who is credible and who huckster whether because they bought-off, intimidated, or have extra-scientific philosophical elements at play.

Although ecclesiastical history is not my specialty, the whole new-age religion thing as it relates to 'science' has interesting parallels to the Cathlic reaction to the  Protestant reformation in my understanding of it.  The Catholics had their priests who were the only ones authorize to read the bible (or read anything at all for that matter.)  Then Martin Luther came along and said 'Hey, this is bullshit!  Anyone can and should read the fuckin' thing for themselves and think about it!'

Science is a tool... and tools are meant to be used. Meant to be used by scientists. Do you understand what the word scientist means? Now that we've established there is a group of people that use science who we call scientists, it should then be fairly easy (for most people at least) to understand that said group of people can have agreements on scientific issues and develop a consensus among the scientific community. So again, I ask you what your credentials are to go against what these people are saying about climate change?  

Also, climate gate has been debunked for years, leading scientists have been unequivocally reaffirming the consensus on global warming ever since, and my political party doesn't align with the left.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

Don't you mean people claimed the original study he did was flawed, so he then did this study where to ensure that their own bias wasn’t influencing the results, the authors reached out to the climate scientists themselves. When the climate scientists rated their own papers, they returned the exact same figure: 97%.  And when skeptical economist Richard Tol did his best to dismantle the paper, even he found a 90% consensus.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus

Let me guess though, your proof that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists don't believe that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities are a bunch of factually and publicly debunked studies like this one that claimed 31,000 disagree?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

Not only that but you have scientific association after scientific association all on the same page with climate change, unless of course every one of those entire associations is just "pure propaganda".
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf

Ah, no.

First of all please check the credentials and background of John Cook.

Second, the study is flawed and does not prove what you think it does.

It's an excellant example of pure propaganda couched as science.

Yes, they are indoctrinated with leftist propaganda like climate change, multi-culturalism, the idea that we're all some "community", identity politics, victimhood, and many other problematic seeds of division.

Appropriation of science as a tool to give their propaganda false authority is fairly common. Hitler relied on eugenics, a branch of evolutionary theory, as the basis for his regime's genocide.

Man-caused climate change cannot be proven 1%, let alone 100%. Give us an answer to the question I asked a few posts back:

"Why is every "solution" to climate change something to do with expanding govt power, increasing taxes, increasing regulations, coercing companies into producing unnecessary "green" products - all of with have ZERO affect on the alleged cause of climate change?"

You're telling us you believe the fairy tale about bitcoin being the work of some japanese dude? Come on...nobody is THAT gullible. And if you think demons don't exist then you haven't watched any video taken during WW2 as socialists rounded up people by the thousands to kill them.

Here's an idea for you and other morons - stop talking. LOL

I'm glad that you take satire literally, and believe obama and hitlery are demons. That gives us a good gauge for the level of stupid we're dealing with when talking to you.

There is not "scientific community" you leftarded parrot. Science is a tool to enable us to improve our understanding of the natural world we live in. It's not a group of people, in fact, most science that matters was performed by non-academic tinkerers in their basements/garages - not pseudo-intellectuals who have no accomplishments to their name or competence to show, but are happy to rattle off credentials nobody cares about outside of the institution that dispenses said credentials.

What you need is to answer some of the basic points I raised - which you cannot, and that is why you're quickly trying to change the topic. This is why you are irrelevant, and your indoctrination materials are unneeded and unwelcome.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Climategate

What's even funnier are all the leftard websites that try to lie to cover for climategate, pathetic as always. But hey, let me know when you come up with responses to my previous message. Don't spam links and don't paraphrase some other website. Speak in your own words, if you can.

Many youth in schools are indoctrinated in the idea they should not believe in anything which lacks conclusive evidence.

This is why climate change denialists exist..

They think they should not believe in climate change unless someone can prove 100% it is real.

 

Alex Jones is NOT a new source.  Does anyone remember what he first said about bitcoin.  "demons" priceless!!  He has an agenda, they all do.  stop reading that shit, lol

So long as your credential is Alex Jones (the man who literally accused Obama and Hillary Clinton of being “demons” who “smelled like sulfur”) to disagree with study after study, scientific institution after scientific institution, and the scientific community as a whole, I think I'll head back to reality, thanks. You want to talk about making money and hoaxes? He rides gullible people like you all the way to the bank. You're in desperate need of a proper education.

Yes, I did say the scientific community as a whole that you for some reason believe you're qualified to speak against. Now apparently because of people like you and Richard Tol who like to misrepresent data, we need a consensus of a consensus.
Here you go, educate yourself: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

When something that is not at all scientific is portrayed as science, and then declared to be "settled" when there is absolutely no conclusive scientific data about whether human activity has any lasting effects on regional weather let alone global climate , then it is fake science.

Fake scientists are shills who advocate for fake science, regardless of their academic credentials or lack thereof. They typically spend most of their time doing TV shows/interviews and almost no time doing actual scientific research, i.e. bill nye or neil degrasse tyson, are both leftist shills posing as scientists.

If you make a claim, especially with regards to anything scientific, the burden of proof falls upon you. Banning skeptics is pretty obvious evidence that the fake science of climate change, which has  thoroughly been debunked time and time again, is losing what little influence it had.


Because they're not on the same page, just like shitlery was never ahead in the polls, just like "progressive" libtards are a tiny minority and not a majority, just like the world is not flat.

The myth of consensus is often cited (ignoring the fact that consensus is not a basis for declaring anything to be 'settled' in science), but it's not true and never was. Most actual scientists have very mixed opinions on the degree to which any human activity affects the global climate...and in fact, "global climate" is a misnomer in itself because climate tends to be regional.

That said, why is every "solution" to climate change something to do with expanding govt power, increasing taxes, increasing regulations, coercing companies into producing unnecessary "green" products - all of with have ZERO affect on the alleged cause of climate change.

You can suck the cock of all the phds you want. A moron with a phd is still a moron - and there are plenty of them to go around. When you "educate" yourself with lies and crackpot fake "science", you end up as the educated idiot accusing people who do not buy into your garbage of being heretics. Sounds familiar. Can't prove something? Call skeptics "deniers" and try to brand them as some kind of pariahs.

Alex Jones has been spot-on about nearly everything he reports. Let me know when your track record is that good. It never will be if you continue subdue yourself with the lies of the left. Might be time for you to stop being a truth denier and mentally develop past that of a 5-year old.

Help me understand. How exactly is it fake science? How is it that there is so much "fake science" and so many "fake scientists" and "fake scientific organizations" that it's all just made up?

Why isn't it more believable to you that not only are all of these scientists and scientific organizations on the same page, but it makes more sense to deny climate change if it is like you say all about the money? Explain it to me like I'm 5 years old so I can better understand your point of view because the only people I've ever heard deny man-influenced climate change are the same uneducated conspiracy theorists that listen Alex Jones as if he has a PhD in anything other than how to make tinfoil.

Leftists love their fake news and their fake science. As others have said, "man-caused" climate change is nothing more than a ploy by globalist scumbags to impose a worldwide carbon tax to fund a corporate fascist "world govt. Trump's win put a sizable dent in that plan, hopefully people don't fall back asleep and let these globalist turds seize power again.

You... You mean that those people make a lots of money?
And that they might be funding huge lobbies to keep that?
Especially as we know that in fact green energies are cheaper... It's just that oil is not only paid for but widely financed by taxes reduction...

Yup. Of the top ten largest companies by revenue oil and gas make up five of them, who combined take the number one spot for most profitable industry in the world with ease at over $1,000,000,000,000 annually.

Is it the largest industry?  That's interesting.

Then simply go back to 1980 instead of 1996. Even though it's only a few years back, it still shows a more accurate representation of global warming than what you're portraying.  

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60/plot/uah6/from:1980/mean:60/offset:0.38/plot/uah6/from:1980/mean:60/offset:0.38/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:60/trend

Edit: I don't mean to sound like I know it all either, because I honestly don't. I just find it it hard to believe that anyone could deny climate change despite all of the data, despite a scientific consensus, and despite the fact that the largest industry in the world - the fossil fuel industry - has everything to lose by not denying it.