There is no climate change due to global warming period. The earth receives its energy from the sun and its a real scientific fact that the sun is shrinking-no tankers come to top it off. The earth is slowly cooling. The fact that reddit has to suppress comments show that they arent interested in science...they are interested in perpetuating more propaganda-real science is objective and not close minded
Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 36. (Read 636483 times)
...
Well said. I must fall into that 2%.
I'd rather discuss the planet's radiative balance at the other stratosphere than this nonsense about glaciers and consensus and tinhorn climate dictators.
And I'd rather work with raw data and apply my own corrections rather than with 'homogenized' data where the 'corrections' are made by 'change agents' who have agendas and motivations which are blindingly obvious when viewed from a few steps back.
The scientific method certainly does support corrections, even (laughable, but true) homogeniziation, corrections, change agents WHEN the full algorithms are public and the results are independently verifiable.
Unfortunately, the latter is not the case.
...
Well said. I must fall into that 2%.
I'd rather discuss the planet's radiative balance at the other stratosphere than this nonsense about glaciers and consensus and tinhorn climate dictators.
And I'd rather work with raw data and apply my own corrections rather than with 'homogenized' data where the 'corrections' are made by 'change agents' who have agendas and motivations which are blindingly obvious when viewed from a few steps back.
Quote
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change.
Wow what a glaring burden of proof fallacy. This is what passes for a scientist these days? Maybe these scientists should be taught how to think before they are taught what to think.
An understanding of 'climate change' involves about 2% physical science with the remaining 98% being a combination of political science, economics, history, etc.
In my observation, the 'skeptics' or 'deniers' who focus on the traditional 'hard science' aspects make quite a good account of themselves. They have an easier task in this because it is to their benefit to reduce and simplify which is a key to starting the process of understanding. Their counterparts on the 'consensus' side need to obfuscate and confuse in order to achieve their goals and this puts them at a disadvantage in head-to-head conflicts which, increasingly, the 'consensus' crowd seeks to avoid.
I'd rather discuss the planet's radiative balance at the other stratosphere than this nonsense about glaciers and consensus and tinhorn climate dictators.
Quote
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change.
Wow what a glaring burden of proof fallacy. This is what passes for a scientist these days? Maybe these scientists should be taught how to think before they are taught what to think.
An understanding of 'climate change' involves about 2% physical science with the remaining 98% being a combination of political science, economics, history, etc.
In my observation, the 'skeptics' or 'deniers' who focus on the traditional 'hard science' aspects make quite a good account of themselves. They have an easier task in this because it is to their benefit to reduce and simplify which is a key to starting the process of understanding. Their counterparts on the 'consensus' side need to obfuscate and confuse in order to achieve their goals and this puts them at a disadvantage in head-to-head conflicts which, increasingly, the 'consensus' crowd seeks to avoid.
Quote
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change.
Wow what a glaring burden of proof fallacy. This is what passes for a scientist these days? Maybe these scientists should be taught how to think before they are taught what to think.
It's not like most of those who agrees with climate change are doing it out of research. They just parrot what they see on media.
There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.
There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.
If you try to get the reasoning out of the skeptics, it is all grasping at straws with nonsensical logic. While they are not parroting what they see in the media, they have their own biases that prevent them from thinking in a systematic and correct way.
It's not like most of those who agrees with climate change are doing it out of research. They just parrot what they see on media.
There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.
Very sound point of view you express.There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.
In other words, Reddit errs by siding with eco fascists and alarmists whose nature is far more religious than scientific.
My impression is that the Reddit climate sub-reddit is a number of organized postings from one or two individuals, without hardly any reading or commenting on them. In other words, the sub-reddit is dead. This is likely a direct consequence of limiting and banning discussion. This in turn implies poor judgement on the part of the moderators. Which is circuituous logic since eco fascists and alarmists of course have poor judgement.
MIT reddit is a ground for goovy trolls to raise useful idiots that clearly has nothing else to do.
Its a propaganda tool to leverage teh masses and their inaptitudes for global democreepy shenanigans.
It's not like most of those who agrees with climate change are doing it out of research. They just parrot what they see on media.
There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.
Very sound point of view you express.There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.
In other words, Reddit errs by siding with eco fascists and alarmists whose nature is far more religious than scientific.
My impression is that the Reddit climate sub-reddit is a number of organized postings from one or two individuals, without hardly any reading or commenting on them. In other words, the sub-reddit is dead. This is likely a direct consequence of limiting and banning discussion. This in turn implies poor judgement on the part of the moderators. Which is circuituous logic since eco fascists and alarmists of course have poor judgement.
It's not like most of those who agrees with climate change are doing it out of research. They just parrot what they see on media.
There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.
There's SOME truth in climate change denying. What's wrong is reddit-tier people shitting on the rational points.
I was actually going to post this, seems like very compelling evidence for warming.
Source here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88607&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_title
I'd be very interested in any comments or rebuttals from skeptics on this....
If it came from Gavin Schmidt (and it did) I wouldn't believe a bit of it.
I was hoping for a more detailed rebuttal, it's not as if this guy recorded all the data personally. The methods seem to be referenced quite thoroughly in the article; I haven't checked all the references tbh, but just saying "Gavin Schmidt is a liar" isn't a valid argument IMO.
It's not like I wouldn't invite you to find alternative sources for a similar argument. I'm serious about what I said. There are some climate scientists who are alarmist, who are not honest.
Some. Not all.
I was actually going to post this, seems like very compelling evidence for warming.
Source here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88607&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_title
I'd be very interested in any comments or rebuttals from skeptics on this....
If it came from Gavin Schmidt (and it did) I wouldn't believe a bit of it.
I was hoping for a more detailed rebuttal, it's not as if this guy recorded all the data personally. The methods seem to be referenced quite thoroughly in the article; I haven't checked all the references tbh, but just saying "Gavin Schmidt is a liar" isn't a valid argument IMO.
I was actually going to post this, seems like very compelling evidence for warming.
Source here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88607&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_title
I'd be very interested in any comments or rebuttals from skeptics on this....
If it came from Gavin Schmidt (and it did) I wouldn't believe a bit of it.
I was actually going to post this, seems like very compelling evidence for warming.
Source here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88607&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_title
I'd be very interested in any comments or rebuttals from skeptics on this. Of course I understand that El Niño is very active this year, and also that there may be limitations to some of the data's accuracy. But it does seem to show an overwhelming trend.
The climate change idea is another great way of marketing. We're now being afraid because 'soon, everything will become hot' yeah, but it's not because of us.
We're accused of pollution because of smoking and driving but they are testing NUCLEAR weapons, they are testing ROCKETS and stuff that we can't pollute as much as them even in a lifetime.
It's changing because they want it to. HAARP - this is not a conspiracy theory anymore. I dom't consider it, because we can see the exact things taking place on our sky every single day of our lives.
No, there are no contrails or HAARP controlling the climate. We're accused of pollution because of smoking and driving but they are testing NUCLEAR weapons, they are testing ROCKETS and stuff that we can't pollute as much as them even in a lifetime.
It's changing because they want it to. HAARP - this is not a conspiracy theory anymore. I dom't consider it, because we can see the exact things taking place on our sky every single day of our lives.
The climate change idea is another great way of marketing. We're now being afraid because 'soon, everything will become hot' yeah, but it's not because of us.
We're accused of pollution because of smoking and driving but they are testing NUCLEAR weapons, they are testing ROCKETS and stuff that we can't pollute as much as them even in a lifetime.
It's changing because they want it to. HAARP - this is not a conspiracy theory anymore. I dom't consider it, because we can see the exact things taking place on our sky every single day of our lives.
We're accused of pollution because of smoking and driving but they are testing NUCLEAR weapons, they are testing ROCKETS and stuff that we can't pollute as much as them even in a lifetime.
It's changing because they want it to. HAARP - this is not a conspiracy theory anymore. I dom't consider it, because we can see the exact things taking place on our sky every single day of our lives.
Every time you quote something about "coldest month" it's local news from a random country.
In the same month there's usually hot weather in most other countries.
Nice cherry picking.
In the same month there's usually hot weather in most other countries.
Nice cherry picking.
AH....
We may be in agreement.
If you notice I said "picking coldest (or hottest, blah blah blah ) month is a SUCKER'S GAME.
but butt NSAaaAaaaa
Every time you quote something about "coldest month" it's local news from a random country.
In the same month there's usually hot weather in most other countries.
Nice cherry picking.
In the same month there's usually hot weather in most other countries.
Nice cherry picking.
AH....
We may be in agreement.
If you notice I said "picking coldest (or hottest, blah blah blah ) month is a SUCKER'S GAME.
Every time you quote something about "coldest month" it's local news from a random country.
In the same month there's usually hot weather in most other countries.
Nice cherry picking.
In the same month there's usually hot weather in most other countries.
Nice cherry picking.
Jump to: