Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 32.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 11:15:23 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on October 04, 2016, 08:10:35 PM

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 01:14:13 PM

....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about? You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?

This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....

Because Erlich was a major, popular writer. Book for example, The Population Bomb.

He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists.

And he was wrong in everything he said.

As you could well be.

He was a single author.

He is but 1 person. This consensus amongst scientists is far far beyond that. (Apparently not "solar scientists" - apparently)

Anyway, it is a huge logical fallacy to equate one guy who wrote a book (however popular) one with global warming because he was an alarmist.

I did google the book a bit. I'm not sure how he calculated we'd be out of food in the 70s or 80s. We can take on a ton of population by just switching to vegetarian based diets. The level of knowledge in that area 50 years ago must have been horrendous.

btw - Not only could I be wrong, I actively hope to be wrong. I just look and never see evidence or arguments that strike me as compelling.

It is quite easy to look at usable land, max theoretical food production, minimal and average needs for humans, and figure out the curves. Erlich's complete and total failure should serve as a warning for anyone wanting to make apocalyptic claims about Warming or whatever. Erlich's logical fallacy was presuming the continuation of observed linear and exponential trends in a mathematically chaotic environment. To put it in common language, sort of like a gambler winning a couple of hands and thinking it'll continue.

That's the certain way to lose and lose hard.

SgtMoth

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1004

buy silver!

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/warming-alarmists-redefine-what-a-hurricane-is-so-well-have-more-of-them/

Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We'll Have More Of Them

notbatman

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1038

Quote from: Spendulus on October 05, 2016, 06:23:45 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on October 05, 2016, 01:32:30 AM

Quote from: notbatman on October 04, 2016, 05:17:43 PM

https://youtu.be/hywDc8iOMgc <--The truth about global warming.

edit:

FYI the satellite weather data is actually collected by you guessed it, weather balloons.

satellite weather balloons data it is.

Satellite weather balloons?

I have to think about that one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_balloon_satellite <--- This is the truth about geostationary satellites.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: hdbuck on October 05, 2016, 01:32:30 AM

Quote from: notbatman on October 04, 2016, 05:17:43 PM

https://youtu.be/hywDc8iOMgc <--The truth about global warming.

edit:

FYI the satellite weather data is actually collected by you guessed it, weather balloons.

satellite weather balloons data it is.

Satellite weather balloons?

I have to think about that one...

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: notbatman on October 04, 2016, 05:17:43 PM

https://youtu.be/hywDc8iOMgc <--The truth about global warming.

edit:

FYI the satellite weather data is actually collected by you guessed it, weather balloons.

satellite weather balloons data it is.

dwma

sr. member

Activity: 405

Merit: 250

Quote from: Spendulus on October 04, 2016, 08:10:35 PM

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 01:14:13 PM

....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about? You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?

This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....

Because Erlich was a major, popular writer. Book for example, The Population Bomb.

He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists.

And he was wrong in everything he said.

As you could well be.

He was a single author.

He is but 1 person. This consensus amongst scientists is far far beyond that. (Apparently not "solar scientists" - apparently)

Anyway, it is a huge logical fallacy to equate one guy who wrote a book (however popular) one with global warming because he was an alarmist.

I did google the book a bit. I'm not sure how he calculated we'd be out of food in the 70s or 80s. We can take on a ton of population by just switching to vegetarian based diets. The level of knowledge in that area 50 years ago must have been horrendous.

btw - Not only could I be wrong, I actively hope to be wrong. I just look and never see evidence or arguments that strike me as compelling.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 01:14:13 PM

....
Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about? You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?

This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. ....

Because Erlich was a major, popular writer. Book for example, The Population Bomb.

He was yesterday's alarmist,just as you are one of today's alarmists.

And he was wrong in everything he said.

As you could well be.

notbatman

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1038

https://youtu.be/hywDc8iOMgc <--The truth about global warming.

edit:

FYI the satellite weather data is actually collected by you guessed it, weather balloons.

Berns

sr. member

Activity: 290

Merit: 250

The truth is born in dispute. Why deny your opponent? I am sure that such bans are harmful to science.

Iegion

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

Good I never liked Reddit anyway. Just give me more reason not to use them. It's probably being run by a bunch of tree hugging democrats anyway. They can try to ban us but they can’t silent us.
Don’t get me wrong I still do my part in recycling whenever I can and I do support solar and wind energy. I just think the left blow this global warming thing way out of proportion in trying to fear and advancing their agenda.

dwma

sr. member

Activity: 405

Merit: 250

Quote from: Winter1986 on October 04, 2016, 01:08:57 PM

I do not advocate bans of something especially in science. Must be able to convince their opponents. If you can't convince someone, then not the fact that your theory is correct.

You think this until you come across mental illness and or severe addictions. Then you realize convincing etc doesn't work. They are people who are no longer rational.

You let those people do what they wish but also minimize their damage by keeping them away from your life.

This holds true for forums too. Luckily this forum is a bastion for free speech, but Reddit never claimed to be that.

dwma

sr. member

Activity: 405

Merit: 250

Quote from: Spendulus on October 04, 2016, 01:04:41 PM

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 01:02:15 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on October 04, 2016, 07:40:42 AM

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 01:38:29 AM

....I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.

I just googled it. They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.

You are but another greasy fucking cockroach...

Wow, what a great answer about science.

Wait, no...it's not.

Wow, what an intelligent reply in a debate.

Um, wait. No, it's not.

The Erlich/Simons debate is 100% relevant. Many of the arguments of today's environmentalists are foreshadowed in those issues. Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong. All of them.

He, just like you, was just plain wrong. But that's no reason to insult people.

Simon only won the bet because of the timeframe. Had it been on a different timeframe he would have won. So a guy made a bad bet.. and somehow that disproves manmade global warming? Or something... Read the fucking wiki posted. This is almost as bad your demonstrating papers are invalid because you can't use a webbrowser and can't seem to understand your spell checker fails on an advanced HS vocab. Literally.. guy makes a bet. Loses. Wow! Manmade global warming is a sham! WTF.

Lets just assume that it is relevant. (I would agree there is a little bit of relevance..) The point I am making is that these occurrences are next to nothing compared to the work and investigation put into global warming. They do not begin to compare in magnitude. I would be willing to back this up with a wager but I'll give you the guys the excuse for your cop out because I'm fair. It would be very difficult to measure such things empirically given changes in media/tech over these years, so I don't expect anyone to take me up on the bet. If you wish to do it, start proposing methodology and escrow.

Please note my comment.

Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong. All of them.

Care to discuss them? It might be enlightening.

Why would I discuss something irrelevant that I said I know almost nothing about? You only have passing discussions about someone's schizo obsessions, you don't spend a lot of time delving into it with them, yanno?

This debate happened between 2 individuals decades ago. I really don't care what the guy said. You guys hold up this bet as some big deal and it was just random variance. I get that, you need all the bullshit evidence you can muster. One guy chose the wrong time and the economics of the time failed him. He could have just as well won and it would have been little evidence for his case. (See that I did? Thats being truthful and logically consistent)

Lets talk about how you guys love to go on about how proponents of climate change gain so much from their beliefs. THen you hold up the lone contrarian but never go to mention how he is treated as a real important guy by Republicans of the same ideological bend. Without looking into this, I could not think of one person who is more famous over the subject than Cristy. Plucked out of obscure academia and onto the stage because he refuses to fix his data. Of course logical inconsistencies don't bother you guys. You just dismiss them one at a time outside of any sort of context.

Winter1986

full member

Activity: 234

Merit: 250

I do not advocate bans of something especially in science. Must be able to convince their opponents. If you can't convince someone, then not the fact that your theory is correct.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 01:02:15 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on October 04, 2016, 07:40:42 AM

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 01:38:29 AM

....I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.

I just googled it. They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.

You are but another greasy fucking cockroach...

Wow, what a great answer about science.

Wait, no...it's not.

Wow, what an intelligent reply in a debate.

Um, wait. No, it's not.

The Erlich/Simons debate is 100% relevant. Many of the arguments of today's environmentalists are foreshadowed in those issues. Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong. All of them.

He, just like you, was just plain wrong. But that's no reason to insult people.

Simon only won the bet because of the timeframe. Had it been on a different timeframe he would have won. So a guy made a bad bet.. and somehow that disproves manmade global warming? Or something... Read the fucking wiki posted. This is almost as bad your demonstrating papers are invalid because you can't use a webbrowser and can't seem to understand your spell checker fails on an advanced HS vocab. Literally.. guy makes a bet. Loses. Wow! Manmade global warming is a sham! WTF.

Lets just assume that it is relevant. (I would agree there is a little bit of relevance..) The point I am making is that these occurrences are next to nothing compared to the work and investigation put into global warming. They do not begin to compare in magnitude. I would be willing to back this up with a wager but I'll give you the guys the excuse for your cop out because I'm fair. It would be very difficult to measure such things empirically given changes in media/tech over these years, so I don't expect anyone to take me up on the bet. If you wish to do it, start proposing methodology and escrow.

Please note my comment.

Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong. All of them.

Care to discuss them? It might be enlightening.

dwma

sr. member

Activity: 405

Merit: 250

Quote from: Spendulus on October 04, 2016, 07:40:42 AM

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 01:38:29 AM

....I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.

I just googled it. They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.

You are but another greasy fucking cockroach...

Wow, what a great answer about science.

Wait, no...it's not.

Wow, what an intelligent reply in a debate.

Um, wait. No, it's not.

The Erlich/Simons debate is 100% relevant. Many of the arguments of today's environmentalists are foreshadowed in those issues. Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong. All of them.

He, just like you, was just plain wrong. But that's no reason to insult people.

Simon only won the bet because of the timeframe. Had it been on a different timeframe he would have won. So a guy made a bad bet.. and somehow that disproves manmade global warming? Or something... Read the fucking wiki posted. This is almost as bad your demonstrating papers are invalid because you can't use a webbrowser and can't seem to understand your spell checker fails on an advanced HS vocab. Literally.. guy makes a bet. Loses. Wow! Manmade global warming is a sham! WTF.

Lets just assume that it is relevant. (I would agree there is a little bit of relevance..) The point I am making is that these occurrences are next to nothing compared to the work and investigation put into global warming. They do not begin to compare in magnitude. I would be willing to back this up with a wager but I'll give you the guys the excuse for your cop out because I'm fair. It would be very difficult to measure such things empirically given changes in media/tech over these years, so I don't expect anyone to take me up on the bet. If you wish to do it, start proposing methodology and escrow.

As far as insulting.. You're #1 on the list. See "climate preacher boy" because you didn't know that your spell checker fails due to simple education + observation. You have yet to explain yourself. You also lied about not being able to read a paper I posted when it is plainly available to anyone who tries. Keep trying to paint a different view of reality.. I'm sure some other fellow lunatics will buy into it.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: dwma on October 04, 2016, 01:38:29 AM

....I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.

I just googled it. They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.

You are but another greasy fucking cockroach...

Wow, what a great answer about science.

Wait, no...it's not.

Wow, what an intelligent reply in a debate.

Um, wait. No, it's not.

The Erlich/Simons debate is 100% relevant. Many of the arguments of today's environmentalists are foreshadowed in those issues. Also, All of Erlich's prophesies were proven wrong. All of them.

He, just like you, was just plain wrong. But that's no reason to insult people.

dwma

sr. member

Activity: 405

Merit: 250

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on October 04, 2016, 12:02:57 AM

Quote from: dwma on October 03, 2016, 10:01:41 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on October 03, 2016, 05:45:05 PM

I came to change my mind on both climate change and population dynamics, based on the evidence and the fact Simon won the bet.

Did you somehow miss the Climategate fiasco? That, if nothing else, shows "the consensus is wrong" (and validated numerous critics of the system which produced it).

Here's a couple of great places to begin your remedial lessons on debunking the quasi-religious popsci "ZOMG Teh End Is Nigh" Cassandra complex of doom-mongering.

Simon–Ehrlich wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

Climategate: Why it matters
The scandal we see and the scandal we don't
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

ROFL. Lets figure out a way to find the size of text from those things in history vs what has been put out about manmade global warming.

Lets see if your claim actually holds up. It doesn't.

It is the epitome of false equivalence.

I am willing to bet on this with the appropriate escrow agent. Just go find a good way to measure it but I don't think we can fairly do that.

LOL, of course you had to say "false equivalence." Everybody take a drink, then spin around waving your hands. Cheesy

And you personalize the debate to avoid acknowledging Prof. Julian Simon (IE NOT iCEBREAKER) won the wager against Prof. Ehrlich.

The claims from the Register article certainly hold up; they are based on a whistleblower's exquisitely curated leak of the perverted science behind the ManBearPig-Industrial Complex.

Of course you can't read code, so the otherwise damning phrase "fudge factor" as applied to an innocent data array means nothing to you.

Your parents and education have failed you so badly and completely you don't even realize how stupid and ignorant you are.

That's why you "can't even" why Climategate matters, despite a well-written non-technical article explaining the issues in plain English. Wink

That is insanity. I know nothing about Prof Julian Simon or Prof Ehrlich because they have no relevance to anything we are discussing? Thats great that you know this bit of trivia.

I just googled it. They really have even less relevance than I was guessing.

You are but another greasy fucking cockroach of a man who won't put his money where his mouth is. Always weaseling your way out of it with some bullshit.

I'm not the one "hand waving".

Epic that you somehow bring up programming. You guys are always throwing out random guesses. "You don't understand variance." "You don't understand the big picture." and now "of course you can't read code".

J

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: dwma on October 03, 2016, 10:01:41 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on October 03, 2016, 05:45:05 PM

I came to change my mind on both climate change and population dynamics, based on the evidence and the fact Simon won the bet.

Did you somehow miss the Climategate fiasco? That, if nothing else, shows "the consensus is wrong" (and validated numerous critics of the system which produced it).

Here's a couple of great places to begin your remedial lessons on debunking the quasi-religious popsci "ZOMG Teh End Is Nigh" Cassandra complex of doom-mongering.

Simon–Ehrlich wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

Climategate: Why it matters
The scandal we see and the scandal we don't
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

ROFL. Lets figure out a way to find the size of text from those things in history vs what has been put out about manmade global warming.

Lets see if your claim actually holds up. It doesn't.

It is the epitome of false equivalence.

I am willing to bet on this with the appropriate escrow agent. Just go find a good way to measure it but I don't think we can fairly do that.

LOL, of course you had to say "false equivalence." Everybody take a drink, then spin around waving your hands. Cheesy

And you personalize the debate to avoid acknowledging Prof. Julian Simon (IE NOT iCEBREAKER) won the wager against Prof. Ehrlich.

The claims from the Register article certainly hold up; they are based on a whistleblower's exquisitely curated leak of the perverted science behind the ManBearPig-Industrial Complex.

Of course you can't read code, so the otherwise damning phrase "fudge factor" as applied to an innocent data array means nothing to you.

Your parents and education have failed you so badly and completely you don't even realize how stupid and ignorant you are.

That's why you "can't even" why Climategate matters, despite a well-written non-technical article explaining the issues in plain English. Wink

dwma

sr. member

Activity: 405

Merit: 250

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on October 03, 2016, 05:45:05 PM

Quote from: dwma on October 03, 2016, 01:25:29 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on October 02, 2016, 09:57:40 PM

Quote from: dwma on October 01, 2016, 01:06:49 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 30, 2016, 01:31:41 PM

In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle. The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.

This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now.

So you are a solar cycle denier? How retrograde. Roll Eyes

"Very small percentage" = appeal to popularity (a logical fallacy)

You are obviously too young to remember the long procession of hobgoblins used to justify destroying freedom, from the neo-Malthusian population bomb and ice age panics of the 70s, and the catastrophic warming and nuclear winter of the 80s, to the climate change of the 90s.

You are scared witless of whatever fashionable new bogeyman the Fabians and Frankfort School throw out this decade.

You may relax, dear child, because none of those instances of catastrophism (which are merely secular versions of eschatology) have come to pass.

If we get wiped out, it will be by sudden planetary (think supervolcanic) or astrological (giant meteor of doom) factors beyond our control.

So spare us the hubris, and especially the accusations that doing nothing = violence. Don't press that specious nonsense in my face or you'll get cut.

You compare these things that were little more than a few pop (popsci) entries into a magazine with something that has grown in consensus over the past 20-30 years. (Those are your dates, you called climate change a 90's thing.. )We're in 2016 now and nothing really seems to show that the consensus is wrong.

I said very small percentage because there I don't have a real number or anything to cite. Feel free to disagree. You will be wrong.

Foolish child, you know so very little about these vast, interdisciplinary topics and gain from your smugness only intellectual closure.

EG, the Population Wars were not just popsci proto-clickbait but rather fought between two professors, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford and Julian Simon of UM.

I spent high school and college diving deep into scholarly journals only found in university libraries researching this stuff, and arguing both sides in debate tournaments.

I came to change my mind on both climate change and population dynamics, based on the evidence and the fact Simon won the bet.

Did you somehow miss the Climategate fiasco? That, if nothing else, shows "the consensus is wrong" (and validated numerous critics of the system which produced it).

Here's a couple of great places to begin your remedial lessons on debunking the quasi-religious popsci "ZOMG Teh End Is Nigh" Cassandra complex of doom-mongering.

Simon–Ehrlich wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

Climategate: Why it matters
The scandal we see and the scandal we don't
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

ROFL. Lets figure out a way to find the size of text from those things in history vs what has been put out about manmade global warming.

Lets see if your claim actually holds up. It doesn't.

It is the epitome of false equivalence.

I am willing to bet on this with the appropriate escrow agent. Just go find a good way to measure it but I don't think we can fairly do that.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Spendulus on October 03, 2016, 08:15:16 PM

Why, sir. I beg that the Classics should be included in such erudite educatifying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

"George Carlin on Global Warming" should be mandatory viewing for all libtards.

So much truth bomb. Grin

Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 32. (Read 636455 times)