Pages:
Author

Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 26. (Read 636443 times)

legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
]More correct to say that they believe "some part of the warmign trend is due to human activities."

But, hey, WHAT WARMING?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:60/plot/uah6/from:1996/mean:60/offset:0.38/plot/uah6/from:1996/mean:60/offset:0.38/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:60/trend

Posting graph is good.
Explaining them is better...

"LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT"  Roll Eyes
Sure.  It just shows that satellite measurements of temperature indicate there is not much to worry about regarding global temperatures.

Why does it only start at 1996 out of curiosity? It shows a much more accurate picture if you set them all to 1880.
Satellite measurements don't go back to 1880. 
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
From the website of the us President has disappeared see about program to combat climate change. I think this topic will lose its relevance. Let's see what they will say when the scientists lose funding.

No.
It will lose its place in politics discussion.
Because the orange man doesn't give a fuck about climate change. Why would he? You don't have to care about it when you're billionaire...
But the topic will never lose its relevance.
If Americans will no longer Fund these studies you may run into problems with the financing of research. Also may be jeopardized Kyoto Protocol. More of America could increase oil consumption.
How can it endanger Kyoto Protocol?
USA never wanted to sign it...

And happily enough USA isn't the only country funding science xD
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 250
From the website of the us President has disappeared see about program to combat climate change. I think this topic will lose its relevance. Let's see what they will say when the scientists lose funding.

No.
It will lose its place in politics discussion.
Because the orange man doesn't give a fuck about climate change. Why would he? You don't have to care about it when you're billionaire...
But the topic will never lose its relevance.
If Americans will no longer Fund these studies you may run into problems with the financing of research. Also may be jeopardized Kyoto Protocol. More of America could increase oil consumption.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
]More correct to say that they believe "some part of the warmign trend is due to human activities."

But, hey, WHAT WARMING?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:60/plot/uah6/from:1996/mean:60/offset:0.38/plot/uah6/from:1996/mean:60/offset:0.38/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:60/trend

Posting graph is good.
Explaining them is better...

"LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT"  Roll Eyes
Sure.  It just shows that satellite measurements of temperature indicate there is not much to worry about regarding global temperatures.

Why does it only start at 1996 out of curiosity? It shows a much more accurate picture if you set them all to 1880.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
]More correct to say that they believe "some part of the warmign trend is due to human activities."

But, hey, WHAT WARMING?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:60/plot/uah6/from:1996/mean:60/offset:0.38/plot/uah6/from:1996/mean:60/offset:0.38/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:60/trend

Posting graph is good.
Explaining them is better...

"LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT"  Roll Eyes
Sure.  It just shows that satellite measurements of temperature indicate there is not much to worry about regarding global temperatures.
hero member
Activity: 840
Merit: 529
]More correct to say that they believe "some part of the warmign trend is due to human activities."

But, hey, WHAT WARMING?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:60/plot/uah6/from:1996/mean:60/offset:0.38/plot/uah6/from:1996/mean:60/offset:0.38/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:60/trend

Posting graph is good.
Explaining them is better...

"LOOK A CHART SEE I'M RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT"  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386


Most actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. Not only that, but it's very easy to understand that the fossil fuel industry is the largest industry in the world. Of course they're going to get it in peoples minds that climate change is a hoax, it's how they make money.


More correct to say that they believe "some part of the warmign trend is due to human activities."

But, hey, WHAT WARMING?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:60/plot/uah6/from:1996/mean:60/offset:0.38/plot/uah6/from:1996/mean:60/offset:0.38/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/mean:60/trend
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
From the website of the us President has disappeared see about program to combat climate change. I think this topic will lose its relevance. Let's see what they will say when the scientists lose funding.

No.
It will lose its place in politics discussion.
Because the orange man doesn't give a fuck about climate change. Why would he? You don't have to care about it when you're billionaire...
But the topic will never lose its relevance.
sr. member
Activity: 256
Merit: 250
From the website of the us President has disappeared see about program to combat climate change. I think this topic will lose its relevance. Let's see what they will say when the scientists lose funding.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250


Most actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. Not only that, but it's very easy to understand that the fossil fuel industry is the largest industry in the world. Of course they're going to get it in peoples minds that climate change is a hoax, it's how they make money.



NOOOOOOOOOOOO
NO NO NO NO NO
Don't do that! Don't bring facts here xD

Facts don't matter, logic doesn't matter!
The idea is that your facts are wrong and their facts (mostly coming from blog articles without sources) are right.
That's all folks xD
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250


Most actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. Not only that, but it's very easy to understand that the fossil fuel industry is the largest industry in the world. Of course they're going to get it in peoples minds that climate change is a hoax, it's how they make money.

legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
...

I love the idea of 'oooh spooky conspiracy'.  I guess if you have cognitive issues that prevent from you agreeing with science, that has to be your only out?

If one is to question this premise that it is a paid off conspiracy, you might start with....  Where do they get their funding?  Is it all that money being provided so that those profitable solar companies can do better?  Oh, the whole world is up in arms because a few guys with phds need a job?  It is just nonsensical.

This world is run by oil money. If there is money being put into anything, it is into the skeptic side. Global warming does not agree with oil company profits.

You guys are so ass-backwards.

The whole climate change scam and the reasons behind it are pretty much completely out in the open.  See my last post.

Most of the people calling this spade a spade within the scientific community and without are, like me, pretty much classical liberals.  So it seems in my research at least.....

Yes, bolded above.

"We want to jack up the price of oil (and, see here, chump - we'll just for your own good keep the money we get from jacking the price up)"

Right out in the open.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
I am saying you cannot pick the data and date ranges that only support your argument, if a longer series throws that into question.

Look at the second chart in this article for historical CO2 patterns.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/

Specifically my assertion is that we could, just for fun, use a nonvariant 280 ppm from 1880-1957, and then use the Hawaii data from then forward.

That would allow taking a correlation between T and CO2 for that longer time series.  Realize your correlation will go way, way down.

Look, this is not complicated so let's please not act like it is, and let's not act or behave like the average guy cannot understand it. 


Sorry but English is not my native language so it WAS complicated to understand your grammar. Don't act all arrogant because we use a language you master better than me.

I've got 2 problems with what you're saying.

First: https://warmgloblog.blogspot.fr/2013/06/co2-and-temperature-changes-are.html
First graph shows the correlation between CO2 and Temperature variations since 1850 as you asked. Clearly not a constant CO2 level.

Second: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
The exact same graph as what you gave me but considering VARIATIONS and not absolute value.
Clearly one of us is wrong. Either your graph or mine but one is complete bullshit. Or I missed something huge.

Problem is that I can't check yours because the source of the graph is extracted from a book or a review (don't know) which I never heard of so... i can't tell if it's serious or not.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
And I agree with you, it's not the best correlation I've ever seen.
But I guess that if we can show a clear similar trend between the two with your extremely limited dataset and graph plot I'd say that it's already a good sign of the general analysis.

Especially considering I gave you like 4 or 5 different studies showing a correlation but that you just... refused.
You just refuse my studies and arguments. You don't negate them you just refuse to consider them because they don't suit your point of view.

In fact I don't even know why I'm still here...

I gave you precise arguments supported my multiple studies, datasets and explanations.

You refused them without the slightest argument. Your only argument was "a study from 1958 to nowadays is not enough" but you never brought a more general one showing my claim was wrong.

A study and a correlation from 1958 forward is not enough if the prior hundred years ALSO SHOWS A VERY SIMILAR WARMING PATTERN.  Only by cutting that out can you produce the "Alarming Data" from 1958 forward.  If you agree that the prior hundred years was a constant CO2, then we could do a proper correlation, by taking the beginning Hawaii data from 1958 and running it backwards.

Agreed?

I don't understand your sentence.
You mean that before 1917 it was a constant CO2 level that's what you mean?
Well the answer is obviously no because CO2 level changes constantly. But it was mainly a natural change if that's what you mean. And before 1850 it was only natural (or at least on a vast majority I suppose). But first thesis stating that CO2 could lead to global warming are back from 1870's if I remember well.
So no or few human produced CO2 before 1850 I agree with that.

I am saying you cannot pick the data and date ranges that only support your argument, if a longer series throws that into question.

Look at the second chart in this article for historical CO2 patterns.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/

Specifically my assertion is that we could, just for fun, use a nonvariant 280 ppm from 1880-1957, and then use the Hawaii data from then forward.

That would allow taking a correlation between T and CO2 for that longer time series.  Realize your correlation will go way, way down.  And you just lost your argument.

Look, this is not complicated so let's please not act like it is, and let's not act or behave like the average guy cannot understand it.  
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
And I agree with you, it's not the best correlation I've ever seen.
But I guess that if we can show a clear similar trend between the two with your extremely limited dataset and graph plot I'd say that it's already a good sign of the general analysis.

Especially considering I gave you like 4 or 5 different studies showing a correlation but that you just... refused.
You just refuse my studies and arguments. You don't negate them you just refuse to consider them because they don't suit your point of view.

In fact I don't even know why I'm still here...

I gave you precise arguments supported my multiple studies, datasets and explanations.

You refused them without the slightest argument. Your only argument was "a study from 1958 to nowadays is not enough" but you never brought a more general one showing my claim was wrong.

A study and a correlation from 1958 forward is not enough if the prior hundred years ALSO SHOWS A VERY SIMILAR WARMING PATTERN.  Only by cutting that out can you produce the "Alarming Data" from 1958 forward.  If you agree that the prior hundred years was a constant CO2, then we could do a proper correlation, by taking the beginning Hawaii data from 1958 and running it backwards.

Agreed?

I don't understand your sentence.
You mean that before 1917 it was a constant CO2 level that's what you mean?
Well the answer is obviously no because CO2 level changes constantly. But it was mainly a natural change if that's what you mean. And before 1850 it was only natural (or at least on a vast majority I suppose). But first thesis stating that CO2 could lead to global warming are back from 1870's if I remember well.
So no or few human produced CO2 before 1850 I agree with that.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
...

I love the idea of 'oooh spooky conspiracy'.  I guess if you have cognitive issues that prevent from you agreeing with science, that has to be your only out?

If one is to question this premise that it is a paid off conspiracy, you might start with....  Where do they get their funding?  Is it all that money being provided so that those profitable solar companies can do better?  Oh, the whole world is up in arms because a few guys with phds need a job?  It is just nonsensical.

This world is run by oil money. If there is money being put into anything, it is into the skeptic side. Global warming does not agree with oil company profits.

You guys are so ass-backwards.

The whole climate change scam and the reasons behind it are pretty much completely out in the open.  See my last post.

Most of the people calling this spade a spade within the scientific community and without are, like me, pretty much classical liberals.  So it seems in my research at least.

In researching this topic it was striking how, up to about 10 years ago, the global warming scammers made no secret of their view and promise that the 'green revolution' was going to be a fantastic way to make big money in a variety of ways.  And they have.  Mostly off the backs of the vanishing middle class and the poor, and leveraging the muscle of central government.  This 'make big bucks now' sales pitch was a little bit to much like a flashing neon 'scam alert' sign which didn't align with the 'save the earth' rhetoric so the marketing has shifted recently...but the money inflows from the scam has not.

To test your capacity for logical analysis a bit, try this:  You have an oil company and a lot of known reserves (and most of the govt) under your control which locks out competition.  You would like:

 1) higher product prices
 2) lower product prices

The obvious answer is #1.  'Austerity' no matter how it is achieved has a positive effect on the price point of the supply/demand curve.  This explains why, try as they might, attempts to tie the 'skeptics', 'deniers', 'climate heretics' (pick your favorite term) to 'big oil' fall pretty flat.  Various energy companies seem to fund various 'environments' groups mostly as a way to curry favor for their own unique segment (gas, oil, coal, etc) at the expense of others in their general energy space and there isn't much left over for those who care calling out out the CO2 scam generally.

Any competent engineer is going to know that actually deprecating hydro-carbon fuel use in the near to mid (if not long term) future is a non-threat.  Windmills and solar farms or so expensive and inconvenient that pricing their reserves against a market driven by these technologies is a dream come true and promises riches beyond imagination.

sr. member
Activity: 262
Merit: 250

To me, the 'climate change' thing, when viewed from a variety of angles and reasonably well studied, is one of the most obvious scams I've come across yet.  It's also probably the most well funded so it is not surpriseing to see it persists.  I have not qualms about calling out 'shit sources' in street lingo.

My thesis is that 'climate change' is being used as a Swiss army knife for any project and any other scammers wish.  All it takes is for some (not "97%") scientists to bend their ethics under the justification that it's "for a good cause."  Upon this foundation the establishment media can build a spectacular looking stage show for the masses.  And they have.

For fun:  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html



I love the idea of 'oooh spooky conspiracy'.  I guess if you have cognitive issues that prevent from you agreeing with science, that has to be your only out?

If one is to question this premise that it is a paid off conspiracy, you might start with....  Where do they get their funding?  Is it all that money being provided so that those profitable solar companies can do better?  Oh, the whole world is up in arms because a few guys with phds need a job?  It is just nonsensical.

This world is run by oil money. If there is money being put into anything, it is into the skeptic side. Global warming does not agree with oil company profits.

You guys are so ass-backwards.
The funding for scholars comes from governments. Officials also steal money from government programs. Additionally, the repartition of the energy market can bring in big money. Why you do not consider that under this can use the money?
sr. member
Activity: 405
Merit: 250

To me, the 'climate change' thing, when viewed from a variety of angles and reasonably well studied, is one of the most obvious scams I've come across yet.  It's also probably the most well funded so it is not surpriseing to see it persists.  I have not qualms about calling out 'shit sources' in street lingo.

My thesis is that 'climate change' is being used as a Swiss army knife for any project and any other scammers wish.  All it takes is for some (not "97%") scientists to bend their ethics under the justification that it's "for a good cause."  Upon this foundation the establishment media can build a spectacular looking stage show for the masses.  And they have.

For fun:  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html



I love the idea of 'oooh spooky conspiracy'.  I guess if you have cognitive issues that prevent from you agreeing with science, that has to be your only out?

If one is to question this premise that it is a paid off conspiracy, you might start with....  Where do they get their funding?  Is it all that money being provided so that those profitable solar companies can do better?  Oh, the whole world is up in arms because a few guys with phds need a job?  It is just nonsensical.

This world is run by oil money. If there is money being put into anything, it is into the skeptic side. Global warming does not agree with oil company profits.

You guys are so ass-backwards.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
And I agree with you, it's not the best correlation I've ever seen.
But I guess that if we can show a clear similar trend between the two with your extremely limited dataset and graph plot I'd say that it's already a good sign of the general analysis.

Especially considering I gave you like 4 or 5 different studies showing a correlation but that you just... refused.
You just refuse my studies and arguments. You don't negate them you just refuse to consider them because they don't suit your point of view.

In fact I don't even know why I'm still here...

I gave you precise arguments supported my multiple studies, datasets and explanations.

You refused them without the slightest argument. Your only argument was "a study from 1958 to nowadays is not enough" but you never brought a more general one showing my claim was wrong.

A study and a correlation from 1958 forward is not enough if the prior hundred years ALSO SHOWS A VERY SIMILAR WARMING PATTERN.  Only by cutting that out can you produce the "Alarming Data" from 1958 forward.  If you agree that the prior hundred years was a constant CO2, then we could do a proper correlation, by taking the beginning Hawaii data from 1958 and running it backwards.

Agreed?
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
...
In America, professors who study this stuff could typically get more money doing other things. If profs were after money they'd just go get a private industry job. This is such a rubbish angle to attempt to discredit global warming.
...

In academia proper there are a higher percentage of individuals who are relatively more driven by philosophical considerations than by money.  'Global warming' is one of a family of issues with marketing tailored to this segment.

Some scientists fall victim to the (almost certainly false) belief that they are working toward a sort of a Utopia which is heavily influenced by scientists like themselves because management of the Utopia leverages their talents.  This is the line they are fed by those with a deeper understanding (and deeper pockets.)  In the more immediate space, there is a practical need for grants, career advancement, spending money, etc.  Scientist are, at their core, also human after all, and there is an obvious correlation between success and failure in academia and the willingness to promote or damage the party line on 'climate change.'

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/in-searching-for-a-new-enemy-to-unite-us-we-came-up-with-the-threat-of-global-warming/

Pages:
Jump to: