Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 34. (Read 636455 times)

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.

Yanno, some people lose at the stock market.. and they might say they were winners.. What does that say about Buffet?  

Just a random analogy to try to get it across.

This is an example of exactly what the paper talks about. The paper Spendulus lies about not being able to read to maintain his cognitive comfort.

I'm not a troll. I wish you guys had solid convincing arguments that I am wrong. You don't and your hodge podge logical arguments are damaging to where we need to move. You need to realize that libertarianism and market solutions fail time and time again when presented with problems that have a tragedy of the commons issue. Soften your views on life and you'll get more people believing. We need to get rid of the bullshit laws to make fewer laws.  

It sucks that physics works out the way it does, but you have to get past this blindingly narrow ideological approach to life.  Inaction now is blatant violence towards those who have no say in having their environment turned upside down and destroyed in some ways.

It is not "my complaint". I am saying that your data seems to be at odds with what most of the scientific community says. Again, you people never address shit. You just try and find a way around addressing it to maintain your cognitive security.

I suppose asking for a graph that goes back further is not the best request, but it would show a truer amount of warming.

We humans do have enough needless problems, but ignoring the biggest one we've yet to confront because it doesn't fit your politics is not the best way forward.

As much as I despise the pseudo-intellectual buffoon known as Spendulus, at least you are fairly coherent in your arguments.

I am against any bans. In the first one they will argue. The truth is born only in disputes. Secondly, what's the difference who says what, more importantly who does what.

Your complaints matter not.  Why?  The goal of the chart is to demonstrate that the climate models, and thus the 'science' upon which they are based, are shit.  The computer models don't go back to 'the beginning of the 1900's because the bogus science was not constructed at that time, and because the defective sims were not run on Hollerith machines (though they may as well be for the results they produce.)

Seems that the only 'legal' data is that which is diddled by the scientpriests.  Since it is more challenging to diddle the present readings upward without being caught, the usual technique these days is to 'homogenize' the historic readings downward.  As Orwell famously stated, 'Those who control the present...'

Just so you know, I personally don't doubt that we are in a warming trend here on Earth at the present time, and I don't know of anyone who does.  It's been going on in fits and starts since the earth was colder than it is now, and nobody doubts that at many times it was.  My complaint is that it is ever more obvious to me that humans burning fossil fuels have very close to zero impact on the trend.  We humans cause enough needless problems that we don't need to invent non-existent ones to attack.  Unless, of course, there are other reasons to do so and 'the ends justify the means' so to speak.

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.

If a Maunder-minimum is the sun's plan, the immediate issue is that the scienpriests have amasses a mountain of BS 'proving' that evil humans are making the earth boil over (and thus, they want to take control in order to save it.)  The fun thing will be to see how spin things to 'prove' that evil humans are making the earth freeze (and thus, they want to take control in order to save it.)

Looks like they make take the easy route and simply criminalize scrutiny of their certified scientpriests' utterances.


Do you have any actual rationale for stating this, or is it just what pops up in your playbook for this topic?

And what does the playbook say for the "Global Overloards + 'diet, injection, and injunction'" topic?  Lemme guess:  "Nope."

First, it's been calculated that a given amount of degree T change, in the cold direction kills ten times as many as in the warm direction.  Second, I believe the problem is the distribution of people today makes them more susceptible to any cooling trend.

You know, thinking things over, and given that a decade or so back, the propaganda shifted from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change,"  we could lean toward having some level of respect for Alarmists Equally for Warming or Cooling (if there were any, which I doubt).

But even the propaganda Masters seemed to get tired of Warmers such as our resident few.

On another subject, there is no stratospheric seeding using contrails by Global Overlords.  Nope.

I'd save your time having a discourse with Spendulus. He's the guy who says he knows better than the consensus of phd climatologists/whatever but he immediately trusts google spellcheck when it tells him HS level vocab doesn't exist. Think about it. That is the type of person you're talking with. He's the one whose got your back.

Your area of the world if it is so nice for global warming won't be so nice when large portions of the earth are displaced. This sort of stuff won't happen in our life times.

This right here is more example of that paper. Your fixation on these conspiracy theories of it being some big mass manipulation misleads you time and time again. *THAT* is the core of your biases. All this other stuff is just smoke you've created for the benefit of yourself and others.

Your chart has C growing at .25 C when everywhere else says .75-.85 ? If it went back to the beginning of 1900s then we could figure out if your chart is valid. Why?

I wonder how they will forbid to Express their attitude to global warming Trumps. All this cheap PR.

TPTB ('the powers that bank') are 'predicting' a 400% increase food prices in the coming decade and a variety of other hardships to befall the pleb class.  It's a fair hypothesis that they 'know' things that others don't...in addition to the rather obvious one that they know how to get wealthy and stay that way.

Even at the heart of the last ice-age, glaciation never got to my little corner of earth so I'll be building a greenhouse.  Actually, it's not a long duration cold snap that concerns me since even a 'mini' one is unlikely to impact me in my life-cycle.  It's more that as everything that the the city dwelling populations consume, from food through medications through water, is dictated by a rapidly consolidating multinational corporate entity structure (see the merger of Bayer (formerly IG Farben of NAZI gas chamber fame) and Monsanto.)  Such operations as the great global warming hoax are only 'sustainable' by neurologically damaging the population as the standard propaganda techniques become to absurd to be suitably effective on their own.

A concern about global cooling is certainly warranted.  Here is an article from the Huffington Post (not exactly a bunch of right wing conspiracy theorists, are they ? )  Anyone who wants to shut down discussion of this or criminalize it is bat shit crazy.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/solar-lull-little-ice-age-sun-scientists_n_4645248.html

Sun Scientists Debate Whether Solar Lull Could Trigger Another ‘Little Ice Age’

But a relatively quiet sun could cause problems. Some scientists say that this period of weak solar activity may mirror what happened before the so-called Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715 — a period named after solar astronomers Annie and E. Walter Maunder, who studied sunspots and helped identify the sun’s strange activity in the latter part of the 17th Century. That time period saw only 30 sunspots (one one-thousandth of what would be expected) and coincided with a “Little Ice Age” in Europe, during which the Thames River and the Baltic Sea froze over.

Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading in the U.K., estimated that we have up to a one-in-five chance of being in Maunder Minimum conditions 40 years from now.

Common sense applied to the chart says that your theories about the dangers of evil fossil fuel use are all a load of horse shit.

The chart spaghetti are the model predictions and the solid line is observed reality.  The endless cronyism and wealth generated in the 'sustainability' movement is a direct result of the now discredited 'science' which produced the flawed models.  My 'conspiracy theory' is that this was no accident.  Other charts show that reality is now outside the error bar on the spaghetti.

Until a few years ago, the defense against 'common sense' was to 'hide the decline' and try to explain it away, assure the mouth-breathing public that disaster was still right around the corner, and propose that the fact that reality was not playing ball only meant in some nebulous that the danger was even worse than previously predicted.  The new strategy seems to be to simply deny the existence of the problem with the theory and hope that Joe Sixpack is to fuckin' stupid to notice.  Sadly that has turned out to be a surprisingly effective strategy.

Maybe not effective enough though, in which case the fallback which is being set up is to simply criminalize 'denial' be it science based or not.  This is why I consider you guys 'regressive'.  Regressing right back to the dark ages when the priests of the Catholic church defined reality and the earth was flat.  The analog between the church and it's priest class vs. the IIPC and it's 'scientismist' class is startling.

edits: minor

Bah. No. It is trying to show how there are people that hold out against what is common sense. It is this bias caused by anti-government crap. Every time I've encountered anyone who has a bachelors or high and they are very against the idea of global warming, there is also some additional component. ALWAYS.  It is NEVER pure science. Last guy I got into it with was some buffoon who went to Columbia and started ranting about Marxists.

I tried 2 different browsers. I will send the link to another person shortly.  

Wow, this is so solid.  You just prove it.

ideation is a word !  It is spelled correctly. I can't help it google has a goofy spellchecker?  
conspiracist is a word and spelled correctly.
incoherencies is a word and spelled correctly.


It is bizarre. You try to belittle this stuff so hard. You are now telling me words don't exist when anyone who went to college should be familar with ideation and conspiracist etc.

Give up trying to act intellectual.

You sir are a total fucking sham.

PS - You also can't operate a web-browser or have some bizarre out of data software. The link works all over.  Not sure if you are a liar or just stupid. Please tell me which or we can stand with simple coward.

Ironically, I'm coming around to 'your way of thinking.'

As I've 'proven' to a significant degree, evil humans burning fossil fuel has nearly zero to do with it.  OTOH, an idea which I initially rejected, is that geo-engineering could have some impact on global temperatures.  It is increasingly obvious that it can have wide-scale impacts on 'climate', and with certain feedbacks, an impact on global temperatures also seem plausible.  Don't take my word for it.  NOAA has already admitted that there is 'accidental' geo-engineering due to commercial aircraft, and CIA director (and former communist voter) Brennan is pretty ga-ga about the idea of using geo-engineering as an inexpensive irrigation system servicing chosen entities (and, presumably, dis-servicing others.)

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCP4x9dVvE4

What really spurred my interest in geo-engineering was my own eyes looking into the sky above my own home.  As little as three years ago I nearly completely wrote it off as a wild conspiracy theory.

I entertain the hypothesis that the 'anthropogenic climate change' fraud as couched by the likes of you guys is as much as anything about trying to produce justification for weather modification.  Of course that is not to say that the promoters (like yourself) would have the foggiest clue that that is the real game.

Not my problem why your little article comes up on your browser and not mine.

So....let's run a little reality check here.

Anybody else on this form able to access the article?

(By the way, my spell checker is point out a dozen spelling errors in your "abstract."  Thought you might want to let your climate preacher boy know.)

Yet another attempt to lay a foundation to attack real science in the court system since doing so in the lab or on the chalkboard is becoming increasingly impossible as the years drift by and the fraudulent model world vanished over the horizon.

At one point you said this is all "proven". Previously you said it was rare for anyone to know anything. Which is it?  YOu basically give credibility to the paper I posted. You guys have huge cognitive biases because of your political views which unfortunately prevent you from looking at things logically. You can look all around and see direct evidence of the earth warming at a rate far greater than anything in man's history. Maybe not in your backyard... but.. it doesn't take much.

The article is freely available.  Maybe springer is normally a paywall? It says "open access" at the top of the page, then explains that this article is freely available to anyone and everyone. I could get the _exact_ quote.

Here is the conclusions.

To me, and to genuine scientists, 'know' means 100% and this is a very very high bar.  I'll give you a little lesson about how to operate in such a challenging world:

The continuous nature of the slope describing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is measured at Mao Loa (sic?), say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to represent a delta if it did indeed exist.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

The computation of anthropogenic CO2 releases based on economic records is, say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to compute a significant delta at around y2k.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/CO2_Emissions_IPCC_1024.jpg

(By chance, both plots I found happen to be from a warmunista shill site (which doesn't proxy, so click to view.))

So clearly, the idea that humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and it builds up to cause a problem, has at least 98% chance of being wrong.  Roughly, but close enough.

This is about as close to 'knowing' something as is practical in the real world.

As it happens, there are a whole chain of additional ludicrously small probability suggestions and/or utter absurdities between the theory that handing over $100's of TRILLIONS of dollars over the next decade and control of the global economy to a gaggle of bozos at the UN will save the planet certain death.  It's hard to believe that anyone above idiot rating would actually believe this, but so it seems to be.  A good illustration of the quality of propaganda that money can buy these days.

https://www.corbettreport.com/and-now-for-the-100-trillion-dollar-bankster-climate-swindle/